[DoritoChef]

I don't think there's any question as to whether or not mainstream media outlets across the Western world have been capitilizing on the "War on Terror" for decades, but one that has remained unanswered is how effective have the Western world's anti-terrorist measures been?

There are some measures, like TSA in America, that appear to be more focused around the illusion of security than actually preventing acts of terrorism. But what about some of the surveillance efforts conducted by intelligence organizations within the Five Eyes?

Maybe this merely a display of my own ignorance, but I don't understand why the efficacy of surveillance measures (both domestic and non-domestic) isn't discussed more often. If governments were more open about all the terrorist attacks they were able to prevent ahead of time, maybe the general public wouldn't have such a negative opinion of them when one terrorist slips through the cracks.

This paper (https://www.cepol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/26-reinhard-...) has some interesting insights into the matter. While admittedly a slightly biased source, this ProPublica article also has some interesting things to say about mass surveillance (https://www.propublica.org/article/whats-the-evidence-mass-s...)

[pjc50]

The U.K. regularly jails people for planning terrorism - but it receives very little publicity. I couldn't name any.

[DoritoChef]

Thank you for sharing! I did some quick Googling and found this BBC article that seems to back up what you're saying (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39176110). I really do wonder why they wouldn't talk more about it? I think it would be a fair compromise to say "hey we stopped X amount of terrorist attacks, but we can't tell you everything about how we stopped them because that's classified."