Free Will and Fusion Centers
Occasionally, philosophical debates interact forcefully with public policy, even completely under the radar. Fusion centers are described as intelligence hubs where information is shared between various law enforcement and government intelligence agencies. Their development is partially in response to the post-9/11 criticism that agencies did not adequately share information that could have prevented the terrorist attacks. However, these centers have some civil liberties advocates and libertarians worried. Although I begin by focusing on fusion centers here, the debate is about the broad purposes and limits of profiling and intelligence gathering in law enforcement.
In addition to the obvious intelligence sharing that these centers are designed to support (like suspicious flight school activities), another purpose may be to construct profiles of suspicious individuals based on factors that are correlated with threats to security. The mere word “profile” will immediately incite strong responses from many. Some immediately reject the suggestion that profiles could legitimately enhance law enforcement activities in any way and some see potential benefits. Some fear irreparable harm to civil liberties and others see a net benefit to society.
One core philosophical issue (often left unsaid) underpinning this debate is that of free will. The more faith one has in human free will, the more she will reject the use of profiles based on gathered data. The concept of pure free will is essentially non-existent, now. Free will faces criticism from those who point to the influence of genes, society, and institutions. At the opposite end of pure free will is the pure determinist camp, which argues that free will is an illusion and apparent choices are actually just predictable outcomes calculated by the biological computer-like brain which is governed by the inputs it receives and the weighing mechanisms it has learned. If the determinists are right (or even almost completely right), that conclusion has implications for security policy.
If free will is an illusion and individual actions can be perfectly predicted (hypothetically) or significantly predicted (in reality), then profiling makes sense. The state should not close its eyes and pretend like an individual who has all the factors of a threat could make a real conscious choice that defies the statistical profile. It should actively gather and compile information that could be used to predict dangerous behavior and it should allocate its resources to further investigating those individuals who raise suspicions.
Two things should be made clear about profiling, though. The first is a warning against oversimplification. Accepting the validity of profiling based on large amounts of data is not the same thing as racial profiling (based on one factor). Fusion centers and modern law enforcement is not just about compiling lists of Arabs or Hispanics. It is about constructing detailed profiles based on numerous factors that indicate potential threats. Second, profiling should only be used (if at all) as one step in the investigative process. An extremely suspicious profile may warrant further observation or searches, but not conviction or detention without further evidence.
Most people probably never consider the effect of the debate between free will and determinism on national security policy. A lot of Americans are especially susceptible to the appeal of free will. We want to believe that even individuals who grow up in bad environments and are indoctrinated with bad ideas and have violent histories still have a choice to commit future acts or not. We bitterly hold on to the idea of free will for a lot of reasons. But if it is an illusion, then so is the opposition to law enforcement profiling and intelligence sharing.
