To me, even bigger problem is a general fact that a large majority of people easily agree to restrict liberties (some of them hard won) because "terrorists can also do this". A more defensible argument would be "outlaw X if a fraction of law abiding citizens snagged would be tiny".

I would be curious though how big a majority would still support the logic that "we should restrict/track any X if X helps terrorists", if the question were to be posed cleanly (i.e., without scaremongering examples on the same page). If the problem is presentation, not internal beliefs the pendulum may swing back sooner rather than later.