A good example is the history of tracking cars. Privacy concerns with police tracking were originally non-existent since the first versions were police literally following cars, so the number of potential targets was limited by the number of officers. Then came tracking beacons that were physically attached to the car, enabling a single officer / command center to track hundreds or thousands of vehicles. Undoubtedly more accurate and detailed, but mildly more invasive. The latest iteration of this is to simply track every car on the road via cameras with OCR or through RFID on toll passes. After you've collected a history of every vehicle in an area, you can pick-and-choose which ones are interesting. This is astronomically more detailed since you now have a history of where every baddie was at various points in time, but I think most would agree that it's much more invasive than ever before.
That assumes that there exists some objective, mutually agreed-upon measure of "accuracy".
For example, Glenn Greenwald has said that there is no definition of what constitutes "terrorism" that is not inherently based on race[0]. This isn't saying that the measures we take to prevent "terrorism" are racist; it's saying that the actual pursuit - the goal itself - is inherently racist, albeit implicitly.
The argument in support of that claim is too long to go into here[1], but suffice to say that, if you believe that the word "terrorism" is simply a euphemism for rationalizing racist behaviour or suppressing legitimate political dissent, then no, you're not going to be happy when people find more accurate ways to target those individuals.
[0] You may or may not agree with this premise personally, but that's not the point.
[1] though easy to find online
Terrorism is a low risk in the US, these programs seem to add little to just having investigators follow leads and intentionally infiltrate groups or paying informants or similar, and the US government has a long record of targeting groups that the powerful don't like.
