On: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

[mothers]

Suppose there was an organization, "Creation", that did mass surveillance on everyone on the planet. They don't disclose what they do with this data.

Let's say as a result of Creation's sharing of this data with local governments, crime is nonexistent.

Based on only what we've said is that a good or bad deal? Also, all of your examples were either purchased or have alternatives, so, yeah.

[openfuture → mothers]

How do you know that Creation has the right definition of "crime" or that such a definition even exists.

[Navarr → mothers]

To be fair that's all based on morality which is subject to vastly differing viewpoints depending on circumstance, time period, etc.

I think most of the people here would say that's a bad deal - but I don't think there's any way to say definitively that such is the case.

It's possible a more open society with less secrets is a better society - but I don't know that, and I don't know that the opposite is true.

[xg15 → mothers]

Yes and suppose I have a magic spell, the incantation of which just requires sacrificing a few children, then it will get rid of all the evil in the world. Good or bad?

Your scenario is way too terse to yield some actual insights and honestly seems aimed for a particular outcome. Questions that remail open, e.g.: What kind of crime? How can the governments get rid of crime using data alone? What side-effects does the data-sharing have? Are those side-effects less or more severe than the crime used to be? Can you know all potential side-effects for the future? there other approaches to solve the crime problem?

[TulliusCicero → mothers]

I wouldn't evaluate it on those terms. Whether the ends justify the means depends on the specifics of the means.

Not all bad means are equally bad. E.g. Taxes are a necessary evil that we accept, but we don't, as a general rule, let agents of the government just take whatever they want (hence the recent controversy over civil forfeiture).