I think surveillance is completely retarded. Not completely but pushing for more and more, I see people asking to give away their privacy because terrorist succeeded an operation?<p>All of the french terrorist (yes, they are also french, born in France and turned in France), including the ones from january, were already known from the police. We knew they traveled to Syria. Some official said back in january that they just couldn&#x27;t afford to follow them 24&#x2F;7, just not enough manpower.<p>So what more surveillance will do? We already know who they are, we can&#x27;t arrest them before they do anything, and from interviews on french TV (I am french), our services already stopped a lot of them before they act already. Like earlier this august, apparently some dudes was planning on hitting a music concert, probably during one of the numerous summer festivals.<p>I realize that this could be an argument for more surveillance since it is working for most cases, but I still strongly believe that more surveillance means:<p>- Working on consequences instead of causes (causes would be french people getting radicalised)<p>- Completely prepare the field for abuse if futures gouvernements feel like it, which I believe they will (they already do basically, to some extent). Let&#x27;s remind everyone Hitler was elected, majority of people voted for him. I&#x27;m not saying I&#x27;m scared that a new devil will rise in France, or even western countries, but none of our liberties and rights are secured by any means.