The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Quite simply, the freedom of hundreds of millions is worth a few terrorist attacks that kill a few dozens.
If not, then you should definitely ban cars, as they kill a whopping 33k people a year.
In other words, the balance is: let people die free rather than live unfree.
Exactly. This is the cost of being a free society. You can not and should not rely on the government to sacrifice liberty in the name of security. Security is first and foremost a responsibility of the people. The role of a government of a free society(regarding security) is to enable it's populous to defend itself, not necessarily do it for them. This is why the second amendment refers to a "militia" instead of a government ran military. Unfortunately, America has truly lost it's way and I don't know if things can be fixed at this point.
I honestly fail to see how monitoring telecommunication metadata is an infringement of rights. The government has not stopped you from taking any action. I agree that it COULD be used for evil, but that's not a very convincing argument. Many technologies we enjoy and rely on enable evil acts.
These books don't tell me how the government analyzing communication metadata is an infringement of rights.
"Imagine a world where the government assigns you a number when you are born. Where you have to register with the government when you turn 18. Where each year you must report detailed financial information to the government. It's like 1984!"
If not, then you should definitely ban cars, as they kill a whopping 33k people a year.
In other words, the balance is: let people die free rather than live unfree.