[Gunrunner2]

Oh. . .my bad.

He said "SSI" not SCI.

In the immortal words of Rosanne Rosanna-Danna; "Nevermind."

But, he does put SSI into the security classification world by linking it with S/TS. That leads me to think that perhaps he got the words wrong, as I know of SCI, never heard of SSI in relation to security classifications. Maybe I'm missing something.

[palmer]

I hadn't heard of SSI either, but Schneier thinks it's a new category in parallel with the existing secrecy categories.

[okie01]

Irrespective of SCI, SSI and the rest of the jargon, Schneier is right about the value of active security as opposed to the largely useless expense of passive security.

The one is a great inconvenience to the law-abiding folks. The other is a great inconvenience to the terrorists. If we have a list of names to match, then we also have a list of names to a.) find, b.) investigate and c.) bring to justice, as necessary and appropriate. That is where the money and effort should go.

If the effect of a passive security is simply to re-direct the terrorists to other tactics and targets, little has been accomplished.

Thus, whatever Schneier's bona fides, common sense says he's right on this issue (and that the politicians and regulators are wrong...but we already knew that).