There appears to be absolutely no proof that such laws would help with their stated purpose. In the cases of Ottawa, Sydney, and now Paris, the perpetrators of their respective nonsense were already well known to authorities, yet this apparently presented no obstacle to them whatsoever.
Are you sure there have been no attempts that were disrupted because the communication was intercepted? those that haven't been disclosed to the public?
Also, just because the suspects in the cases you mentioned were well known to the authority doesn't mean their communication was monitored 24/7. We simply don't know.
> Are you sure there have been no attempts that were disrupted because the communication was intercepted? those that haven't been disclosed to the public?
You think politicians would stay quiet about them if there were?
I think they are, foolishly, staying quiet on some recent victories. They've said as much. It could actually be to their benefit to release more about some of the cases where they don't reveal more about "methods" than the public already knows. But they probably won't, because it goes against their culture of secrecy, they'd rather pretend Snowden never happened.
Their victories are few and far between when you weed out false flag and entrapment cases, and also look at all the attacks that actually happened at the same time. With all the press Snowden got, we in the US got no confirmation of any prevented terrorist attacks even though the media and security agencies kept alluding to the dozens they prevented in defense of their spying
