> I've yet to see the efficiency of mass surveillance in a direct relation to catching terrorism. It is possible that the libertarians are right, that mass sur

> I've yet to see the efficiency of mass surveillance in a direct relation to catching terrorism. It is possible that the libertarians are right, that mass surveillance doesn't in of itself prevent acts of terror. There's considerable evidence there's a TMI problem. Just as with any form of education, too much information can prevent learning because prioritization gets shot. What the libertarians don't address though is the possibility that mass surveillance may as a side affect hold back a higher order of terror. The feeling of being watched changes people's behaviour, known to often make them self police. This applies to future terrorists becoming more passive also. Terrorism is a very tiny subset of human behaviours after all. The supporters of mass surveillance don't want to make that argument because they rightly think it plays into the hands of the civil liberties people. Against this is 'Culture' or the side affect wouldn't be as consequential. Post World War 1 German society, Islam today, different Mafias, they have in common a normalization of political violence. To get the full value you'd need to break the society down e.g. Denazification, anti-racketeering laws...