I think the evidence disagrees. I mean I get the on the face justifications, which in Aspen Institute type circles revolves around the fall of the nation state as the threat actor and the move towards a reality where a single non-state actor can be a viable threat, but thats just the surface level justification that makes it palatable to the average person and policy maker.
I think we just have to look at the history of surveillance not just since 9/11 to understand this. Forest and trees and all that.
Nope. Please remember these words. The surveillance system is about control, not security (finding criminals).
William Binney and thinthread are a great starting place to understand this.