I don't know that I agree with the null hypothesis. Why is the default assumption surveillance prevents terrorism.

Surveillance is often a response to terrorism, but do we have great examples of how our current surveillance systems have actually prevented terror? And while it goes hand in hand with policing, how much prevention can we directly attribute to surveillance.

And this is the more positive attitude. General data collection for building intelligence and selling ads does not appear to prevent terror.

I think that surveillance in general is a pragmatic cost of society but we desperately need to look at the systems we have in place. Is flock actually making people safer? Is mass facial recognition making people safer? How much crime is prevented because law enforcement (and advertisers) have near instant access to purchase metadata every time I swipe my card.

By the same token, community safety groups and neighborhood watch don't make me innately uncomfortable. Nor is it surprising some people have cameras on their property or the bank needs to keep tabs on who's entering and leaving.

I don't entertain the idea that more surveillance = less terrorism. US Law Enforcement fusion centers haven't really impacted white supremacy, but sure did make it easier to target and track protesters.

I think the important discussion here is more nuanced than "surveillance is good and we should lose privacy to be safe".