4 ms·

This is a fatally utilitarian response. You want to be able to calculate whether an equilibrium lies between good and bad outcomes of a process. That is a som

by lvs 11y ago

This is a fatally utilitarian response. You want to be able to calculate whether an equilibrium lies between good and bad outcomes of a process. That is a somewhat defeatist analysis to make because it implicitly denies the gaping moral and ethical risks of the system.

Balgair 11y ago
Yes, completely. But to make an assessment of moral risks, you have to have the data. Something we are unlikely to get. Everything else is just conjecture, perhaps well founded and correct, but still conjecture. Perhaps then the issue is with over classification of intel, not the people in charge. We may never know as a consequence. edit: In the end, it is reasonable to assume we do not have adequate data on the successes of these programs. 2 paths then arise. 1) Then you wait for more data. 2) You examine those people that you reasonably know to have access and take a look at their moral history and actions to determine the ethical issues; it's the only somewhat good data you can add to the set to maybe get a conclusion.
- lvs 11y ago
  No, you're missing my point by saying "you have to have the data," and it appears that you are missing some fundamental concepts in normativity. You do not need data to make a moral argument based upon principle. There is no conjecture involved. (You could read some Kant on this, if you like.) You need data only to determine a particular consequentialist ethics that involves a balance of good and bad outcomes often understood in lay terms as "effectiveness." I think most commenters here would agree that effectiveness is the wrong way to evaluate this system, since epistemologically we cannot know its effectiveness. (... Although many doubt it could ever be truly effective in the presence of creative adversaries.) We can only know that is it categorically wrong.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Morally and ethically, the NSA is still accountable to Congress. If anything really big surfaces, they'll receive all manner of unwanted attention, and if it's big enough, no bleats about security will suffice - the committee that does oversight will be invested of quite extraordinary powers.

by lvs 11y ago

Balgair 11y ago

Yes, completely. But to make an assessment of moral risks, you have to have the data. Something we are unlikely to get. Everything else is just conjecture, perhaps well founded and correct, but still conjecture. Perhaps then the issue is with over classification of intel, not the people in charge. We may never know as a consequence. edit: In the end, it is reasonable to assume we do not have adequate data on the successes of these programs. 2 paths then arise. 1) Then you wait for more data. 2) You examine those people that you reasonably know to have access and take a look at their moral history and actions to determine the ethical issues; it's the only somewhat good data you can add to the set to maybe get a conclusion.

lvs 11y ago
No, you're missing my point by saying "you have to have the data," and it appears that you are missing some fundamental concepts in normativity. You do not need data to make a moral argument based upon principle. There is no conjecture involved. (You could read some Kant on this, if you like.) You need data only to determine a particular consequentialist ethics that involves a balance of good and bad outcomes often understood in lay terms as "effectiveness." I think most commenters here would agree that effectiveness is the wrong way to evaluate this system, since epistemologically we cannot know its effectiveness. (... Although many doubt it could ever be truly effective in the presence of creative adversaries.) We can only know that is it categorically wrong.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

Morally and ethically, the NSA is still accountable to Congress. If anything really big surfaces, they'll receive all manner of unwanted attention, and if it's big enough, no bleats about security will suffice - the committee that does oversight will be invested of quite extraordinary powers.