<i>If you&#x27;re opposed to a surveillance state, you should care deeply about preventing future terrorist attacks</i><p>You can&#x27;t prevent them all, and I don&#x27;t want you to try.  More precisely, I don&#x27;t want you to do what&#x27;s necessary to prevent every likely form of attack.<p>Terrorist attacks in the USA happen when a few nutcases get lucky and succeed in wielding disproportionate force in an asymmetrical fashion.  Only a ubiquitous Panopticon of a police state has a chance of stopping them all.  In infosec terms, patching all of the vulnerabilities will require us all to live sandboxed lives far away from the metal, and that&#x27;s not what this country was supposed to be about.<p>So, go find something else to do, please... or at least, someplace else to do it.  Failing that, maybe name your company after something besides a powerful magical artifact that was captured and subverted by malicious forces.  The real terror will begin when the next J. Edgar Hoover takes control of what you&#x27;ve built.<p><i>If you want to roll back the surveillance state, you have to actually empower people carrying out anti-terrorism to intelligently correlate data gathered through lawful and privacy-respecting means to succeed in their mission</i><p>Bullshit.  The authorities had all the data they needed to stop terrorist acts from 9&#x2F;11 to the Boston Marathon bombing.   They needed more brainpower, not more CPU power.