The recent terrorist attacks on 9/11 brought security to an all-time high and, more importantly, brought the NSA into the spotlight. The facts however do not change, terrorist attacks are not as common as history has shown. So what did national surveillance actually protect? To date there are no documents proving that they prevented damage from being caused. If all Americans know full well that they are being watched, then why would a terrorist with intent to harm use these devices to talk about his heinous acts? Real criminals are smarter than that, and this is proven by every attack in our history. Small acts of crime are not what home surveillance should be used for. Terrorism has existed for decades before electronics were introduced, and even in third world countries where electronics are not accessible. The government needs a different way to locate these terrorists, rather than spying on every innocent human being. Andrew Bacevich states in his article The Cult of National Security: What Happened to Checks and Balances? that until Americans liberate the idea of ​​national security, empowering presidents will continue to treat us improperly, causing a persistent risk to independence at home. Complete and total security can never occur as long as there is malicious intent in the mind of a criminal, and sacrificing freedoms for the false sense of security should not be