The primary problem with this approach is &quot;suffering accountability&quot;. When 85,000 people die of car accidents, there&#x27;s typically no singular group or individual to blame for <i>all</i> the accidents, in total.<p>With a terrorist act, there is a singular group or individual who is responsible for the suffering of multiple individuals, plus all the suffering of those who view the news around the attack and become fearful as a result.<p>If we collectively perceive this group or individual could have reasonably been stopped, might we be likely tend to underestimate the costs of stopping them completely? When we underestimate the costs of &quot;perfect&quot; crime prevention, perhaps our expectations in those who need to stop crimes goes up.<p>And maybe, just maybe, when law enforcement has high expectations placed on them, and their budget is limited, they might be more susceptible to fall into cognitive dissonance - literally believing they must stop all crime on a tight budget.<p>I&#x27;d say, if these assumptions are true, mass surveillance becomes an option at that point.