First: this "Economist Debates" format is a wonderful idea, but questionably executed. Its layout could use quite a bit of rethinking, focusing on improving usability for those who've only stumbled onto the debate after its conclusion (as I assume most of us have). I'm guessing that the format felt more natural and threadlike to those who were along for the ride from the get-go. But there's real value in being able to read the debate, after the fact, from start to finish in an intuitive and easy-to-follow fashion.

As for the content of the debate: I've been following Schneier's commentary on airport security for at least a few months now. What he's saying is no surprise to me. He's preaching to a choir of which I am a fast and firm member. On the other hand, I'm actually amazed at the willingness of his opponent (Kip Hawley) to concede some points that I would have thought were held as unshakable dogma amongst the TSA-apologist set. To me, genuine progress was made in this debate. This was not a case of two people's arguing pre-fixed talking points in circles around each other. This felt more like a real discussion, with give and take.

Kudos to The Economist for hosting this debate, and for attempting to innovate on the printed-debate format. To date, it's a format that nobody's quite nailed. (Nor, for that matter, has The Economist here). But it's an interesting step forward.