The parent poster takes issue with the fact that an unintrusive person of interest list exists, and wants oversight on it. This is an absolutely unprecedented legal take.
It doesn't help that they are conflating the two (one of which is, at a first glance reasonable, and the other is not), when they are not the same thing. All that does is muddy the waters.
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.
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.
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.