That is because "Preventing terrorist attacks" is used only to SELL the program to the populace. Its real goal is to make it so that the status-quo is not distu

That is because "Preventing terrorist attacks" is used only to SELL the program to the populace. Its real goal is to make it so that the status-quo is not disturbed. These programs will be used and are being used to monitor and arrest domestic radicals, support foreign espionage for American economic interests, etc much more than any terrorist prevention: In order of priority: 1) Target "Occupy wallstreet", G20 protests, Greenpeace etc 2) Target foreign govts & corporations for economic gain 3) Target Radicals in foreign countries that oppose US interests (some of these could very well be terrorists also) 4) Actual terrorists So if we keep using the wrong metric to measure success then obviously "Mass surveillance" has failed. The Director of the CIA wasted no time blaming Snowden for the Paris attacks [1] - dismissing all concerns as "hand-wringing". I am now waiting for the "Our current spying is not enough, we need even more spying powers" congress actions to surface. Cynically exploiting the fear and concern after an attack is the real game here - the "efficacy" of the measures proposed is irrelevant, as no one will be able to hold them accountable. [1] - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/us/after-paris-attacks-cia-director-rekindles-debate-over-surveillance.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/us/after-paris-attacks-cia...