Mass surveillance is often sold to the public as an essential tool for ensuring safety and preventing violent acts. The pitch is simple: more cameras, more data collection, and more government access to private information mean less crime and fewer tragedies. However, the reality paints a starkly different picture. Despite the enormous investment in surveillance technologies, high-profile incidents like the Boston Marathon bombing, the Sandy Hook shooting, the Las Vegas shooting by Stephen Paddock, and the attempted assassination of Donald Trump by Thomas Matthew Crooks have still taken place. These failures should prompt us to question the true effectiveness of mass surveillance.
Take, for example, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Stephen Paddock managed to kill 60 people and injure over 400 others during a concert, despite the pervasive surveillance systems in place across the country. Paddock had no significant criminal record and managed to slip through every surveillance net that was meant to identify potential threats. He stockpiled an arsenal of weapons and meticulously planned his attack, yet no amount of surveillance or data collection flagged him as a danger. This tragic incident underscores the futility of mass surveillance in preventing these acts of mass violence. Surveillance provided no warning, no insight, and no prevention for one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history.
Similarly, the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 involved two brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who were known to authorities. Despite the fact that they had been flagged by foreign intelligence and that Boston is one of the most surveilled cities in the country, the bombing still occurred, resulting in three deaths and hundreds of injuries. Surveillance cameras were indeed useful in identifying the perpetrators after the attack, but that is cold comfort to the victims and their families. The key point here is that mass surveillance was unable to prevent the tragedy, and the intelligence gathered was only useful retrospectively.
The Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 is another sobering example. Adam Lanza, the perpetrator, was able to carry out his horrific attack on an elementary school, killing 26 people, including 20 children. Despite an increasingly intrusive surveillance culture, nothing in Lanza’s behavior or online activities was flagged in a way that could have prevented the tragedy. Mass surveillance again failed to protect those who were most vulnerable.
More recently, the 2022 Uvalde, Texas school shooting saw an 18-year-old gunman enter a school and kill 21 people, most of them children. Even with advanced surveillance systems in place and the ability to monitor online threats, authorities were unable to prevent the attack. In fact, the shooter had made concerning posts on social media prior to the incident, but the massive flood of data collected by surveillance systems meant these red flags went unnoticed or were buried under irrelevant information. This highlights one of the main problems with mass surveillance: it collects an overwhelming volume of data, but lacks the precision to effectively identify genuine threats in real time.
The core issue here is that mass surveillance is not only ineffective at preventing these kinds of events, but it also represents a profound threat to individual freedom and privacy. Even as billions are poured into surveillance infrastructure, the results remain underwhelming. Data collection may help in piecing together events after the fact, but it often falls short when it comes to actually preventing violence. The Boston Marathon bombing is a key example—despite the presence of extensive surveillance, authorities were unable to prevent the attack. The same can be said for numerous other tragic incidents. It is clear that while surveillance may offer some intelligence, it does not equate to proactive safety.
What’s more, mass surveillance is a dangerous path to tread when considering our foundational values. Privacy is not just a luxury—it’s a core element of personal liberty. Allowing the state to peer into every corner of citizens’ lives undermines the very freedoms we claim to cherish. This erosion of privacy creates a chilling effect, discouraging free speech and dissent—both critical components of a healthy, functioning democracy. Surveillance creates an environment where the government has unchecked power to monitor, and potentially control, the actions of its citizens. Once those liberties are surrendered, they are rarely regained.
The intention behind surveillance may be noble, but it opens the door to abuse. The risk of creating a society where individuals are constantly watched, judged, and controlled by the state cannot be overstated. History has repeatedly shown that the potential for government overreach is vast, and the consequences are severe. Surveillance does not eliminate crime, but it does eliminate the space in which individuals can freely think, speak, and act without fear of reprisal or judgment.
Powerful figures and secretive groups often push for more surveillance while presenting it as a public safety measure, but the underlying goal seems to be total control. Similar to the anti-gun movement, this push for mass surveillance has less to do with genuine safety and more to do with creating a populace that is easier to control. When individuals are stripped of their privacy and monitored constantly, they become more vulnerable to government overreach and coercion.
Figures like George Soros, known for using his wealth and influence to push for specific agendas, often support increased surveillance. The motivations of these powerful figures are questionable, as they claim to protect public safety while pushing for policies that ultimately erode individual freedoms. The Bilderberg Group, a secretive gathering of influential leaders and financiers, also backs initiatives that include increased surveillance and control. Such support raises important questions about whether these surveillance efforts are truly in the public interest or if they are about consolidating power in the hands of a select few.
Rather than over-relying on surveillance, we should instead focus on targeted intelligence efforts, human engagement, and community-based interventions that address the root causes of violence. Such methods are more effective and far less invasive than treating every citizen as a potential threat. We must hold dear our right to privacy—a right that forms the foundation of individual freedom. Giving in to a culture of mass surveillance compromises who we are and the values we stand for, ultimately leading us down a path toward authoritarian control under the guise of safety.
Mass surveillance has repeatedly failed to prevent mass casualties, and its existence threatens the core values of a free society. We must question whether the sacrifice of our privacy is worth the illusion of safety. The answer, based on the evidence, is a resounding no. Privacy, freedom of thought, and the ability to act without constant scrutiny are foundational principles that must be protected if we wish to maintain a truly free society.