- does anyone have actual proof that surveillance does not effectively curb terrorism or something along those lines?

- i keep seeing the same arguments everywhere "ThEy WaNt To CoNtRoL Us" etc

- how do you propose catching terrorists then?

What's so wrong about expecting police to get warrants and do police work legally and aboveboard? If Law Enforcement doesn't follow the law, how can we trust them to impartially investigate and enforce it? Giving more power to unaccountable groups with a well-documented and lengthy history of malfeasance is just a bad idea, we should be reforming and abolishing these institutions to create a transparent and just legal system in line with the liberal democratic principles that underly our whole civilization rather than the type of surveillance state most associated with totalitarian regimes that terrorize their own people.

The funny thing is that quite often people who actually perform attacks are well known to the security services ( because they have been frequently referred to them - rather than some online trawl ).

cf UK manchester bombers.

In the end the only effective way to stop terrorism ( since it's so easy to just drive a car into a crowd of people ), is to create a society where people don't want to do it - which is what we mostly have - as terrorism, while terrible, is fortunately still quite rare.

This is a classic logical error.

It is not the job of the citizenry to prove that surveillance doesn't curb terrorism in order to preserve privacy. It is the job of the government to prove that surveillance DOES curb terrorism to such a degree that privacy MUST be degraded.

Only then we can have a conversation.

There's not even that much terrorism and there wasn't much even before these authoritarian measures.

More people die in the US from cars every month than died from 9/11.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Yes, who cares what it originally meant:

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

Of course it curbs terrorism. But it's not worth it. Think of everything that improved when the Taliban came into power. Crime went down. Public services improved. It wasn't worth it.

The cure you propose is worse than the disease. I don't want you to prevent me from stubbing my toe by cutting my foot off. You're just going to have to find another way and do the best you can under those constraints.

I really can't believe there are people that still think this is about terrorism in 2026, at least not on HN

How much of this is actually to "catch" terrorists? Its mostly for surveillance, intimidation, suppression. Usually it's the state that defines who a terrorist is, and usually terrorists are ALL people opposing the current regime.

>how do you propose catching terrorists then

how did police ever do anything over the past hundreds of years?

"Terrorists" are by far the least likely to cause me a problem directly in the US. I'm more likely to die by police or be imprisoned by the State than I am to die in a terrorist attack.

In front of the loss of Anonimity (the prospected loss of Dignity), "safety" has utterly no importance. You do not trade Dignity for "safety".

Says a coward posting anonymously online.