I'm glad you asked, the first thing would be to reform immigration. There needs to be a strict system for anyone immigrating, to weed out any potential terrorists. This is not being done in western countries, even though they've known about the majority of terrorism coming from certain countries and ideologies. If they cared they would have already tightened up immigration. To have an enforceable strict immigration system, you have to secure your borders. No other way around it. Why aren't they doing this?

Next thing, they need to secure soft targets. Look at the Hebdo attack, why were they able to get into an out of that building without being captured or gunned down. I'm a big believer in physical security. Armed, trained, psychologically evaluated, guards that secure soft targets. Look at Mumbai, where was the armed resistance to that? This surveillance isn't going to stop such simple attacks, let's get real, and these type of attacks are the vast majority.

Secure doors and windows in building's, planes, boats, vehicles, is a huge thing in protecting against the common terror attack. Why were the 9/11 hijackers able to get control of that plane with box cutters for goodness sake?

Metal detector's are completely okay in my book. Back scatters are okay in my book, if they wouldn't unnecessarily store people's personal bio measurements. There's no good reason to store the image if there's nothing reasonably suspicious. These two machines I just listed could go a long way in security, without infringing on people's essential civil liberties.

I'm glad you asked, the first thing would be to reform immigration. There needs to be a strict system for anyone immigrating, to weed out any potential enemies of the state. This is not being done in western countries, even though they've known about the majority of terrorism coming from certain countries and ideologies. If they cared they would have already tightened up immigration. To have an enforceable strict immigration system, you have to secure your borders. No other way around it. Why aren't they doing this?

Next thing, they need to secure soft targets. Look at the Hebdo attack, why were they able to get into an out of that building without being captured or gunned down. I'm a big believer in physical security. Armed, trained, psychologically evaluated, guards that secure soft targets. Look at Mumbai, where was the armed resistance to that? This surveillance isn't going to stop such simple attacks, let's get real, and these type of 'soft target' attacks are the vast majority.

Secure doors and windows in building's, planes, boats, vehicles, is a huge thing in protecting against the common terror attack. Why were the 9/11 hijackers able to get control of that plane with box cutters for goodness sake?

Metal detector's. Back scatters are okay in my book, if they wouldn't unnecessarily store people's personal bio measurements. There's no good reason to store the image if there's nothing reasonably suspicious. These two machines I just listed could go a long way in security, without infringing on people's essential civil liberties.

Look at our school's for crying out loud! We've had terrible attacks in our school's, and they still won't secure them right.