There’s no such thing as an “unintrusive” list. They make the lists for a reason.

If that's the case, you should have no trouble answering two simple questions:

1. What do you think happens to people on it?

2. Which of those actions should require judicial oversight, but currently don't?

So far, the only answers to those questions in this thread have been 'imagine if...' tangents. I don't need to imagine strawmen, I'd like to know what is currently wrong.

Imagining disasters is how we're in this mess, I'd like to know what the actionable problem is.

> Imagining disasters is how we're in this mess

I posted some links in my original comment that talk about specific problems. That being said, "allowing those in authority to do things that could be used inappropriately... and then it turning out that they did exactly that" doesn't require ANY imagination. The US government engages in such behavior on a daily basis.

Please note the four demands the ACLU makes in the publication you linked.

None of them demand that police lists should not exist, or that judicial oversight should be necessary to put a person on one.

Instead, they demand that:

1. The lists be accurate.

2. The lists be accurate.

3. Allowing people to contest them on a case-by-case basis.

4. To not blacklist people from employment based on them.

The ACLU seems to be in agreement with me.

I don't see them agreeing with you at all. I see you saying "the lists are fine", whereas they are saying "the lists are not fine, but would be ok if these things were true (but they're not atm)". Personally, I don't think it's enough. I think someone being known to be on the terror watch list is likely to cause them all sorts of problems; and anyone can be put on the list for pretty much any reason.

We can't answer that because the lists are secret. That's part of the problem.