> NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack
Because terrorist attacks that were prevented didn't happen, there is no way to know. We could only speculate by correlating terrorist attacks and surveillance, but there are so many external variables that it is effectively impossible to prove causation.
What the ruling said is that the NSA surveillance program resulted in only one conviction related to terrorism, and that it could have been made without it. i.e. it didn't help catch any terrorist, which is a different claim. The end result is the same: the NSA surveillance program is illegal and considered ineffective, but unlike the title claim, it is a fact.
> Because terrorist attacks that were prevented didn't happen, there is no way to know. We could only speculate by correlating terrorist attacks and surveillance, but there are so many external variables that it is effectively impossible to prove causation.
This is nonsense, foiled attacks make the news. The FBI foiled a terrorist attack against the governor of Michigan a few days ago and that certainly made the news.
There is a difference between a foiled attack and one that is prevented.
For example if you lock your bike and when you come back, you see bolt cutter marks on your lock and your bike it still there, you know that it stopped the thief.
But for one attempt like that, there are probably a hundred more potential thieves that just passed by, saw your lock and didn't do anything.
Seeing your lock untouched doesn't mean it is useless. It may or may not have prevented your bike from being stolen, but there is no way to be sure.
In the same way, a terrorist may have had plans, but because of surveillance, he knew he would never have succeeded, and gave up. Seriously I doubt it, but that's a possibility.
Because terrorist attacks that were prevented didn't happen, there is no way to know. We could only speculate by correlating terrorist attacks and surveillance, but there are so many external variables that it is effectively impossible to prove causation.
What the ruling said is that the NSA surveillance program resulted in only one conviction related to terrorism, and that it could have been made without it. i.e. it didn't help catch any terrorist, which is a different claim. The end result is the same: the NSA surveillance program is illegal and considered ineffective, but unlike the title claim, it is a fact.