|
I think this is all fair, but it's really so hard to know. Even this idealized scenario about the terrorism-detector and taking action based on it... well, it's one that came up a lot around the post-9/11 environment (with selectees and the no-fly list [the rare case where people could actually experience the government making an adverse determination against them on classified grounds and get even the one bit of information] and the Guantanamo detainees and the drone kill lists). However, the task of deciding if person X is a good guy or a bad guy, or trying to make a list of the bad guys within some population, is a very small part of what the intelligence community does. And that's partly because of the super-expansive notion of national security that we've been talking about, where so many parts of the government feel that it's their business to know everything that's going on in the world, largely without even thinking about the "who is a terrorist" question at all. As we discussed elsewhere in the thread, the government does not think that Petrobras is a terrorist. But somehow it thinks that it should know what Petrobras is going to do in the future, including "by hook or by crook". I guess there are really at least two threads in the conversation, one of them being the inherent morality of surveillance and espionage activities, and another being "given how (one might think, but probably doesn't actually know) a government makes choices about the use of force, is it a good idea for that government to have access to more and more information?". I think one of riversflow's points in reply to you was basically that, if a government doesn't make choices about the use of force in a good way, that's already a problem, which is not clearly improved by reducing the government's access to information, although you're also right that it could be. (And I've seen Bayesian arguments about that before, including a Bayesian justification for some legal standards involving in the rights of criminal defendants.) But overall, if we know so little about how those decisions are made at all, it will be hard to be very confident about whether more or less information would be likely to make them better or worse! |