An ongoing meme (am I using this word right?) in the security world is what value certifications have – whether it be the CISSP or Certified ASS. Certifications act as signals that we have some combination of skill, experience, and knowledge in applicable areas. They certainly aren't intended to demonstrate anything other than an initial level of expertise and act as a decent filter. I generally support certifications as a kind of short-hand approach to setting expectations about background knowledge.

On the other hand, licenses are a whole different ball game. Licenses are designed as a barrier to entry and really don't signify anything other than certifications. However, the implication is that they will become a requirement. I feel like Robin Hanson when it comes to licenses:

This is completely inadequate as an economic argument, and
I expect economists would pretty strongly agree that neither economic
theory nor data on net supports such regulations.  But economists
almost never actually speak up about them, and they continue to grow. 
Why?

My colleagues tell me that it would just seem silly to make
a fuss over this; it is just not a serious topic.  Yes we can't take
seriously the idea of legally requiring a college degree to suggest
where pillows go, but we also can't take seriously an economist who
would focus on such a trivial and obvious point.  Economists are
supposed to talk about serious, important, difficult topics, you see.