Who is claiming any measure will reduce risk to zero?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp....
Mocking reality is not an argument, even if it can create a popular TV show.
No one. But some claim that the current risk must decrease, while it is much smaller than almost everything else.
How many terrorist attacks would there be if no one was trying to stop them?
BTW, NSA never prevented any terrorist attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance#Purposes
Upd: Also, if the risk is already small, why we need even more privacy invasions?
> NSA never prevented any terrorist attack:
> The director of the National Security Administration today told Congress that more than 50 potential terrorist attacks have been thwarted by two controversial programs tracking more than a billion phone calls and vast swaths of Internet data each day.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-director-50-potential-ter...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/25/nsa-re...
> Unfortunately the tools available to terrorists continue to change and so must the measures used to fight them.
From what I know, the current problem is not the lack of information, but how well it is targeted. For example, we knew about the terrorists in France in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2017_%C3%8Ele-de-France_...
Also, many think that the war on terror made more harm to the humanity then what we would have otherwise. At least such invasive war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_War_on_Terror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias