Part of me feels for security forces. The world is this largely dark swirl of billions of people doing "stuff", and although statistically insignificant, some of that stuff is designed to do evil, e.g. blow up a building to make some sort of statement. So doesn't it make sense to shine a light into the darkness?

I'm not sure if people notice this, but the police are fundamentally reactive - in general a cop isn't there when you get mugged. The risk of getting caught is the value police give you in that moment. This puts the police in a bad position to do what it is Joe Q Public seems to want them to do: prevent crime like school shootings, bombings, and hijacking of airplanes - even when the perpetrator is suicidal and acting alone, or suicidal and highly secretive.

The irony is in their quest to prevent crime, rather than just react to it, cops are deploying tools that examine everyone: because everyone is a legitimate suspect for crimes that haven't been committed yet. They don't know you or me - they only know that somewhere out there is someone plotting some bad stuff, and they want to figure out who it is.

In a way, it's a natural progression of Bush's preemptive war doctrine: don't wait for them to hit you, because the imagined pain of that is too awful: hit them first. In a very serious way it is much like the attempt at Pre-Crime in the movie Minority Report.

The great irony is that, in many cases, these tools are alienating the same population that they are trying to protect, and I would argue, destroying what is the absolute best "tool" for crime prevention: people with their eyes open.

Let me put it this way: it used to be that if I thought someone was building a bomb next door, I would call the cops. I would call them because I would expect them to investigate fairly, respectfully, and that if there was nothing wrong then my neighbor would suffer nothing from the brief investigation. But honestly, I wouldn't call the cops now, because I know how they, and in fact I, would be treated. God knows what sort of wringer they would put us through, innocent or not, trying to help or not.

One of the prices we will pay for these policies and tortured reading of the constitution and law is over-all reduced cooperation from the public.

And that's too bad because there are no electronic tools that can stop the Adam Lanzas of the world. At best, we as citizens and family can at least do our best to identify risks, and take steps to reduce the risk - such as making sure they don't have ready access to guns.

And, I would argue, that there are no electronic tools that can stop the Al Quedas of the world either. The urge to murder people you've never met for abstract reasons doesn't pop up at random - it takes time, community, and I imagine there is escalation. So yes, deeply infiltrate violent (or even potentially violent) groups with human assets. This puts eyes on the ground, and a human sensibility where it is needed.

So yes, well done government, throwing away the best asset you had (the goodwill and trust of the people) and replacing it with crappy toys that don't catch terrorists, but which do give the government unprecedented, asymmetrical power over ordinary people at scale.

Good heavens, when I say it like that it's enough to make one doubt the good intentions of the government!