I don't really agree that the general populace is the appropriate level for peer review of security procedures (although I agree peer review is critical). Security through obsurity is somewhat effective.

However #14 is spot on. The hysteria associated with Terrorism is unwarranted, and encourages terrorists. Most anti-terrorist actions I see seem to just be ineffective palliatives. Airport security, in particular, tends to just strike me as propaganda for the war on terror rather than effective countermeasure.

So I guess I agree that the war on terror is being waged in an incredibly silly way- but I disagree that Joe Sixpack should have the ability to peer review sensible security measures. I'd need to see some examples where lowest-common-denominator peer review provided heightened security.

I'd think sending their staff to improvisation classes would be a better way to go.

Then just add a "skin must be this [---] thick" sign at the entrance, next to the height requirement.

I think David Bowie might have been a better choice- Eno's aesthetic is more about the weird than the young, whereas Bowie has pretty much always been about being young and beautiful.

For the US, I am almost tempted to suggest Ian MacKaye, because he (and the Dischord Label) have been concerned with empowering youth much more than any other entertainer I can think of. Of course, having seen him at a few shows, I am not sure he has the charisma to pull it off.

I also worked in a government facility with a 100% shred policy. I think this has been an increasing trend, and not one that would really seem that unreasonable to me, given how poor judges people tend to be of what is and isn't sensitive, and how relatively inexpensive shreadding is.

I don't like waste either, but I don't think the shredding costs are indicitive of more concealment of secrets by the government as much as they are indicitive of a more earnest attempt to keep what secrets it has. Certainly the percentage of spending has increased, but 2.7 million is a drop in the bucket compared to how much money is spent on things like boilerplate OPSEC (operational security) plans.

Reading Bruce Schneir or Kevin Mitnick is enough to convince me that hoping to attain security in any real sense is just a silly dream, but if we ARE going to strive from some level of governmental secrecy, a 100% shred policy isn't a bad start.