I think the question, although genuine, has a flaw, that is, reasoning in terms of "good or bad".
"Good or bad" for whom? Is something that is "not good" inherently "bad" and viceversa?
Is something "good" only because is "decreasing a threat to US citizens"? What about the consequences of "decreasing a threat"? Like Guantanamo Bay, Patriot Act, this poor guy (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23625215), bombing a country thousands of miles away?
"Good or bad" is relative, just like right or wrong. It's difficult to correctly grasp a concept or conceal an idea by just defining it as "good or bad".
I agree with you, and believe it or not I did try to go out of my way to avoid calling stuxnet itself good or bad: I kept those words out of the sentence which mentions stuxnet
> Stuxnet is the clearest example I know of these tools almost certainly decreasing a threat to US citizens...
However, you still have to make value judgements at some point when organizing a society. It’s literally impossible to do so otherwise. Even if you make a conscious effort to not organize socially — I.e. to embrace anarchy — you’ve made at least an implicit value judgment that governance isn’t worth the limitations it requires of the people (I.e. limitation of individual freedom is “bad”).
“good” and “bad” are messy things to deal in, but they still have their place. Any answer to “should we allow NSO group to operate” has to make a value judgement at some point. I think it actually helps to make that explicit — for example my point should still stand in most other value systems precisely because it refers to “good” and “bad” — which vary across value systems — without prescribing what is good or bad.
I could have been more clear about separating an example (stuxnet — the thing which brings in a value system) out of the argument itself. But I couldn’t find a way to do it without sacrificing brevity or readability. Such are the limitations of communication, particularly written :|
I think the question, although genuine, has a flaw, that is, reasoning in terms of "good or bad".
"Good or bad" for whom? Is something that is "not good" inherently "bad" and viceversa?
Is something "good" only because is "decreasing a threat to US citizens"? What about the consequences of "decreasing a threat"? Like Guantanamo Bay, Patriot Act, this poor guy (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23625215), bombing a country thousands of miles away?
"Good or bad" is relative, just like right or wrong. It's difficult to correctly grasp a concept or conceal an idea by just defining it as "good or bad".