Yes and the same people (ie feds) would do it and other worse things they’ve done overseas to American citizens, always worth remembering. These people aren’t your friends, and they certainly don’t have your best interest in mind.
I'm far more concerned about the Americans, many here, who's knee jerk reaction is to engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to give the government the undeserved benefit of the doubt and minimize the significance when these things come to light. If I wanted to give them the same undeserved benefit of the doubt they give government I would say they are ignorant of the danger.
“I dont know why people are surprised the government is doing [x]… [insert minimization]”
You've taken it as something totally not what was the spirit of the thread. But sure, eliminating laws that make victimless crimes a possibility seems like a good idea. Have fun getting that to happen.
The exact same thing can be said of your reframing of "physical harm" to be "violence" exclusively. You've clearly never debated someone from the voluntarism persuasion, because otherwise you'd know about the concept of externalities. But here is your chance to shine: will you acknowledge the fact that industrial pollution causes physical harm and that your unnecessary reframing creates that blind spot, or will you double down and hamfistedly attempt broaden the definition of "violence" to include pollution (and a thousand other things I could follow up with)?
Some countries require fingerprints for passports.
I'm not sure why all of this is a big deal?