It could be useful to protect people from relatiation under an authoritarian government, such as in Hong Kong. I dislike the idea of a government using mass automatic identification, that could be used again by authoritarians for terrible goals. I also dislike the idea of the opposite and using automatic anonymizing to protect criminals during riots. We're probably going to keep seeing an arms race in this, with good and bad actors on all sides.
Showing the face of a protestor smashing in a window will not lead to that protestor being brought to court and handed a sentence for community service, a fine, or some light jail time. It will lead to extrajudicial retaliation and possibly death.
Again, it would be nice if that weren’t the case and we could trust law enforcement to behave appropriately. But given that they and their supporters are known to hunt down and kill people who protest against them, we cannot in good conscience make it easier for them to do so.
If we are to trust the cops again, they need to show us they are worthy of trust. And they sure aren’t doing that right now.
What I've seen in the past 2 days is that the police are doubling down on being oppressors, not public servants. I expect it to get much worse before it (possibly) gets better. And it may not get better.
Protest turned to riots, literally burning down police stations. Police action wasn't until much later, and they were perfectly fine with the daytime, civil unrest. During the evening, the 'protestors' went home and the agitators came out to fight police, and that's that.
When people are looting every store on a street, the police have no choice but to physically move in. There are very few options for anyone at that point.
Nyet, comrade. My points were perfectly valid and to not acknowledge them is willful ignorance at best.
Black bloc and others are a problem but that actually feeds into what the authorities want, which is to completely suppress protest and civil disobedience.
Challenge: explain away the arrest of compliant CNN reporters on live tv, as well as the intentional targeting of reporters elsewhere (with rubber bullets), and last, but very much not least, the police shooting people in their yards for the act of filming them.
As for the journalist - in a riot situation, people are often detained temporarily as police are clearing areas. Once a riot hits, the police are within their rights to clear out areas. While the legality of temporary detainment varies, you should consider why police are all carrying handfulls of plastic ties ... to detain people.
In some cases, the police were shooting rubber bullets in the direction of protesters wherein there were reporters - there's nothing wrong here.
In some cases, the police were shooting pellets directly at reporters, I don't think this is fair or right, but it still doesn't abnegate the need of cops to be there and to clear people - also - we never know the full details. Maybe the police had warned the crew to leave several times before.
Once things turn into a riot, it's going to be a little bit of a fight, there's no other way about it. If this were 50 years ago there would have been batons cracking heads, thankfully we don't have that. We have have now is actually fairly mundane.
Also, the regular protestors, during the day, are allowed to do as they please generally speaking which is fine.