Security through obscurity

Hugh Hewitt has an item in today's Weekly Standard online about discretion. He raises several good points.

For instance, was this necessary?

Saturday's Los Angeles Times story: "LAX Ranks No. 1 on State List of Terrorist Targets: Attorney general names 624 sites thought to be most attractive to terrorists, including ports, the Golden Gate Bridge, bottling plants."...The Los Angeles Times produced a partial list for the perusal of its readers, and a few churches were surprised they had been ranked so high on the target list. The Times carefully noted that "[n]either the Santa Monica Pier nor the nearby Third Street Promenade are on the list, even though they attract thousands of visitors daily." Handy info, that, though perhaps the local merchants' association might have declined the opportunity to participate in this particular listing.

Somewhere down the line some of us seem to have lost the distinction between "censorship" and "discretion".

I certainly hope some guys in white hats are noting vulnerabilities and addressing them. But that information need not go into the public domain.