The primary cause of these incidents seems to be radicalization of segments of society with 'nothing to lose'. The societal problems involved in the creation of such segments and what can be done about them is a large and complex issue in which some technology will for sure be useful but which is first and foremost a people problem. The seeds for these issues were sown many years ago (and in quite a few cases with those JDAMs and Hellfires which now magically are suddenly part of the solution) and will take decades to repair in a way that these incidents will no longer happen. France is (like several other EU countries) shaping up to become a laboratory about how, if and when these problems are going to be solved. I see no major role for technology here, not in mitigating the harm to innocents and not in the eventual solution. In fact, technology - by virtue of eliminating a large number of blue collar jobs, which gave people something to be proud of and something to lose - is also part of the problem.
Technology is a strong force multiplier for whatever potential "solutions" are, whether a person believes them to be increased surveillance, more open political processes, more cultural mingling etc.
Simply discounting the power of technology is short-sighted.
Applying a screwdriver to a nail is the wrong tool for the problem, even tough that tool has excellent properties in many other contexts. Technology is not some kind of magic wand that you can point at every problem and make it smaller or disappear, in fact, for some problems technology is so wrong that it makes the problems worse rather than better. I'm not sold on technology having a positive role to play here but I'm open to specific suggestions (just like Ryan originally asked for) and if there are any that might work I will definitely support those, in spite of my skepticism about such solutions in general in the current context based on what technology has been able to achieve on this front to date.
Some of it is attributable to people with nothing to lose; however a good many have lots to lose, personally as well as socially at large. It's more about ideology than actually personal grievances.
From what I've read on the subject the key unifying element seems to be that those who do these deeds want to 'matter' somehow, even if that can only be in a negative way. How that ties into psychology I have no idea but if you have something to lose that balance shifts measurably, but even then there are still people that can be successfully radicalized. It's a tough problem, that's for sure.
