A "belief" that someone "may commit a future crime" is practically speaking psychic nonsense.
No, one legitimate concern is over the amount of information gathering and sharing that's needed to establish sufficient “objective, verifiable information” and how that competes with other goods.
Is very different from 'a belief'.
What you're doing is wordsmithing this into something that sounds much worse than the actual text, which is textbook misinformation spreading.
In many cases it also leads to a case being dismissed because no evidence is found.
I'm honestly pretty surprised that people think this is a new concept.
Good luck piecing back together your life at that point, after years of being unemployable and unable to find rental accomodation (and the house that you bought with your life savings is gone, the bank sold it while you were fighting for your freedom).
I think people give too much credit to governments. "Of course they'll only use for-sure for-sure objectively terrorist intent verifiable information." No, historically what they'll do is throw you on the list because you followed a hot commie girl to a meetup in college, or attended a protest, or hell bought a watch terrorists happen to use to set timers in bombs.
And pretty much anything, with a semblance of plausibility or causal inference can be used as "objective, verifiable information". They just need to define that property as a) verifiable, b)objective and c) somehow implies some bad other property or future event.
There's a reason that programming is hard, and even harder when you have to use normal non-programming-language constructs.
What a belief is based on means squat, it is how that belief came to be that is important.