This is THE question.

Why the comments above bother to debate any other aspect is beyond me. It lends legitimacy to absolute non-sense.

And this BS about the world being different...the reality is that most crime is exactly the same as it's always been. And when your car gets stolen and you go to the police station to file a report (because they won't come to the scene of the crime to investigate), they'll still tell you they can't take the report because it's some other stations responsibility...

Is terrorism a new thing?

>Why the comments above bother to debate any other aspect is beyond me

Because for some of us that question is hardly relevant. In a constitutional democracy the means don't justify the ends. Even if they were achieving a lot what they are doing would still be wrong.

I was thinking there are probably a few good examples of highly developed 1st world western countries (lets say with better GDP, education, and so on, stats than the US or Britain) which have little in the way of secret police or spy agencies. And are also not being overrun by terrorist plots. Though they are certainly involved in less wars and oppress their own populations less so the threat would be lower.

Well their focus to find intelligence is credible if you need a war. If their focus is to find emotional intelligence, which means sense and logic together, their apathy may still objectify objectives.

The main role of the UK's intelligence services is to help secure overseas contracts for british businesses, which means exactly what it sounds like it means.

Yes, the erosion of human rights and personal privacy the world over.

Beyond that, it remains to be seen.

EDIT: nice downvotes; umad JTRIG? https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula...