I do understand your viewpoint – theres an unfairness in large-scale terrorist attacks that&#x27;s very hard to deal with, and commentators can all too often be a bit shallow in dismissing that.<p>The thing is… there&#x27;s little evidence that limiting privacy would prevent terrorist attacks. Maybe unless you are talking about a complete elimination of all private communication—something which I think most people would rightly reject outright—then there will always be private channels available for communication. I think most people will accept that some form of government access to communication is sometimes warranted – but that such access must be strictly controlled, judicially overseen, and limited in scope and time. Previous experience as a society suggests that any excessive government power <i>will</i> be abused.<p>The issue here is not one of a government which is limited in its power to &#x27;crack down&#x27; on terrorism. It&#x27;s what you&#x27;ve identified – neighbourhoods riddled with poverty and crime. There are a breeding ground for disenfranchisement, and we know it&#x27;s the tactical approach of groups like Daesh to encourage and recruit from these disenfranchised areas.<p>You can only realistically solve this problem by solving disenfranchisement. That&#x27;s a complex socioeconomic issue, though – and not something I have the answer to. But the idea that this is &#x27;freedom vs. privacy&#x27; doesn&#x27;t stand up to examination.