Not really relevant, the day will come when no terrorists communicate in the clear. I'm not suggesting we outlaw encrypted communications, but I do wonder how law enforcement is supposed to track terrorist communications after they go dark.
It shows two main things:
1) Mass drag-net style surveillance programs are not very effective.
2) Banning encryption will have minimal-to-no effect on improving mass drag-net style surveillance programs.
This means, to date, the only "terrorist plot" thwarted by the NSA mass drag-net style surveillance program remains that one guy who tried to send $8,500 to the Taliban (and was promptly arrested)[1].
[1] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-spying-did-not-re...
The hands-up "Well, terrorism happens. Nothing to do about it." sentiment of many in our community is obviously not resonating with the general public. If we don't provide serious alternatives, they will continue pushing these sorts of methods to greater and greater extremes.
We absolutely do not owe the government to protect anyone from anything. You have more to lose from government agents like police forces than terrorists.
They are investing in total surveillance because they want to make their civilian population submit to their wills. Just stop giving credence to their lies.
I suspect he was identified because there was a person on the ground, talking and interacting with real people. Anyone that thinks this war will be won in an armchair using a PC or by dropping bombs is deluding themselves.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/abdelhamid-abaa...