There are two basic ways of dealing with issues in life, being reactive or being proactive. This is not just when dealing with terrorism, or crime in general, it is the same basic principles in all walks of life.
Being reactive would be reacting to things that happen. By that I mean, somebody commits a crime, and we react by punishing them for that crime. We might also increase our security systems in order to deter others from committing the same crime in the future.
Or, we can be proactive. We can recognise that for most of the time - admittedly not all the time - there is an underlying reason for that crime being committed. For robbery, it is often because somebody is desperate and needs to make some money, or simply steals food to eat. The way forward in being proactive would be to try and take actions so that that person would not have a need to commit a crime; this could be simply talking to them, or trying to help them perhaps by increasing their social benefits such as money from the government or food parcels.
With regards to terrorism, there are people who feel they have a legitimate cause for concern, a reason to fight back against those they feel are oppressors. We could wait for people to commit acts of terrorism and then punish them. We could inter those suspected of committing offences in the future. Or, we could try to get to the root reason why they feel the need to take action, and try to get them to see reason. The first two options are not ideal for long term purposes, as punishing them means people have already died, and costs the government money. Interring people also costs the government money, and we know this means either higher taxes or budgets cut from departments such as NHS and education. The cheapest, and best long term solution, would be to try and stop people from committing crime in the first place, by trying to understand them. After all, once someone has been reasoned with, and they have 'converted', they are the best possible people to go on and help others in a similar situation - they have the prior experience to empathise with others.
ID cards sound good, in principle. And we tried it as a test case several years ago. They cost a person £80 each, and the system to deal with the cards nationwide cost this country over £10 billion! The scheme was cancelled as it was too costly, too few people could afford the £80 fee, and it was discovered the scheme could not be integrated with other countries. The problems were several, one of which was that if you have a card you can enter where you will... and this also applied to people who had fake cards or had stolen cards from others. Another issue was where if a card had slight damage like natural wear and tear it could not be read by a machine meaning more issues were then created. A third issue was when the media discovered the government were planning on keeping more personal data stored on the card than was actually allowed by law, such as biometric data including digital scans of fingerprints and retinal scans - if these were copied by biometric scanners held by hackers then a person's data could be used against them without their knowledge. This has already happened around the world with the new(ish) NFC chips in contactless technology. The issue with ID cards is that yes, they are fine - as long as they are secure, and those in control of the data are honest in how our data is used. Unfortunately, I do not believe either of these are currently true.
Combine both of the above possibilities, and we have a nightmare hypothetical situation. Your personal data could be cloned from your ID card, and used by a possible terrorist. The cloned ID card could be used when purchasing items such as detonators or fertiliser, items that could potentially be used when making a bomb. The police/security services find this data in the course of their investigations, and decide to place you an an internment camp - all for the public good, to avoid a terrorist situation. You yourself are unable to see a solicitor or barrister as per the camp rules, and you have no right to a trial. You would be held, without charge, for as long as the government wants, without any way of clearing your name. It sounds far fetched, but it is of course possible. Indeed, this type of situation has already happened, with people having their ID cloned and then being sent to prison for many years, only to be cleared by using the new DNA technology. With internment camps, this type of situation wouldn't be extraordinary, it would become 'normal'. And the media wouldn't even be allowed to write about your plight, as this would be classed as 'aiding potential terrorist activity'. Again, that sounds far fetched, but in America and the UK, as well as around the world this already happens, newspaper banned from publishing stories or face imprisonment themselves.
The ordinary person would have nothing to fear. Until it happens to you.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...