wrote on Aug 21^st, 2002 at 7:17pm:

Beech Trees,      The identity of the organization is not secret, but neither is it to be bandied about.  There are a number of foreign intelligence services which wish to keep abreast of which test formats are used by specific U.S. agencies.  The less they know, the harder it is for them to penetrate those agencies. George,      You ask why a technique with forensic applications should be kept out of the public domain.  I would argue that one reason for doing so is because it is also used for security purposes.  Let me give you an analogy.  Intrusion detection systems are unclassified, off-the-shelf items.  Yet it is a prudent practice for any homeowner, corporation, or government agency to withhold information about which specific alarm systems and devices they are using to safeguard their possessions.  This greatly increases the difficulty of trying to penetrate the defenses to access that which must be protected.

There is debate, even now, over the efficacy of "security through obscurity".  Encryption algorithms are a prime example:  although a case can be made that keeping algorithms secret provides an additional layer of protection, no cryptographer worth his or her salt would ever base the security of an algorithm on this principle.  In fact, good cryptographic design is completely dependent upon the algorithm being secure even if all details about it are public knowledge.  The same should be the case for physical security of a premesis -- which is where your analogy falls apart.

There are at least two devastating arguments against the "security through obscurity" principle.  The first is that details almost always come out one way or another.  The second is that more scrutiny leads to the plugging of holes in security, not to its compromise.

Frankly, your entire premise smells fishy to me.  Given your track record of misleading the public on the topic of polygraphy, I rather think the point of refusing to discuss R/I screening when the tough questions are asked (and if you look at your posting history, you will find that you have frequently discussed the subject otherwise) is "saving face" rather than "saving national security."

Skeptic