The submitted title is subtly editorialized to the point of being incorrect. The article only says that the phone surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack. It does not say that PRISM did not prevent a single terrorist attack. These are very different claims.

Even where the article does use PRISM, it uses it incorrectly. PRISM is not the program that involved storing telecommunications metadata. The article claims that was one part of PRISM. This contradicts all public reporting on the two programs.