Same goes for NSA's "protection" through mass surveillance. "These programs work" - they said. Except for when they were actually audited and the auditors foun

Same goes for NSA's "protection" through mass surveillance. "These programs work" - they said. Except for when they were actually audited and the auditors found no evidence of the programs "working". But whether they work or fail, they always seem to ask for more surveillance powers and bigger budgets. Mike Masnick also had a good article on this: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150109/06555029648/uk-intelligence-boss-we-had-all-this-info-totally-failed-to-prevent-charlie-hebdo-attack-so-give-us-more-info.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150109/06555029648/uk-in... I think it's more a problem of following the leads they do have. 9/11 attackers were known to be planning an attack, the Charlie attackers were also known (not through their surveillance, but from a tip from another country). But they didn't follow through.