Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most "developed" governments recognize some right to privacy. Counter examples that come to mind would be censorship by governments who surveil internet traffic & lock up "rebels", or governments that go into people's houses without warrants, checking to see if you're harboring people of a "banned" sect. I worked with a developer who had just moved to the USA from Cuba, he told me stories about how they would go arou…
My question was not loaded. I'm not assuming anything (well, except that by having broad surveillance rights the govt can do harm to regular people). I'm looking for documented cases where common people have been harmed so I can feel more impacted by it (and I have better examples when talking about these subjects with friends and family). It's not fair to unload these research needs on HN so I'll do more googling to…
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-clerical-error-barred-...
https://www.propublica.org/article/fbi-checked-wrong-box-rah...
Some highlights:
* it was revealed in the lawsuit that she was put on the no-fly list due to a clerical error
* the government used nearly every tactic available to keep the details of her lawsuit secret in the name of national security, meaning a) they were actively trying to cover up embarrassment of the clerical error, b) the DOJ actually don't have an easy way to know why someone is on the no-fly list, or c) they have a way but have little to no interest in finding out. None of those are good options for a democratic developed country.
* this interrupted her Ph.D. studies at Stanford.
* this interrupted her ability to appear in court for her own lawsuit (because her name remaining on the no-fly list prevented her from travelling back to the U.S.)
* this cost millions of dollars in attorneys fees and what looks like years of time for her
* there is no evidence that the administration of the no-fly list has improved since then, and indeed has only grown (almost certainly a link from the Intercept that backs this up, but you're not paying me to research this and I am now bored and hungry)
Edit: just so it's clear-- the reason she kept reappearing in the list is because the nature of wide-net surveillance databases is that they sprawl across multiple agencies that often don't have the ability to communicate well with one another. Further, no congressperson in their right mind is going to publicly take up the cause of "cleaning up the no-fly list" because the moment there is anything resembling a terrorist attack an opponent will beat them by calling them "soft on terrorism."
One final edit: Question: be honest, if she had lost this lawsuit and I had included her story as an example of common people being impacted by wide-net surveillance, would you have found it convincing?