[tehjoker]

If you're this worried, don't bring your phone lol. If you need to take pictures (and don't take identifiable pics of people without consent), just bring a camera.

Otoh, the main function of protests is to get media attention, so if they don't get publicized there was basically no point unless they evolve into direct action.

If you're interested in this second point, read https://www.amazon.com/If-We-Burn-Protest-Revolution/dp/1541...

[542354234235]

>If you need to take pictures (and don't take identifiable pics of people without consent), just bring a camera.

If you record police brutality, it doesn't do any good if the police come and smash your camera and then deny it. Being able to live stream or to live backup photos and video can be useful.

Also, many recent causes have used social media to provoke "big media" attention. The Arab Spring used social media to circumvent government crackdowns on communications and bring international attention. The #BringBackOurGirls hashtag was started locally after the Boko Haram kidnappings and incompetent government response and brought global pressure and resources.

[jMyles]

> don't take identifiable pics of people without consent

Hard disagree. Public events are public events. My conclusion, based on experience at street protests, historic trends, and current political events, is that there have been significant actions by provocateurs over the past decade or more, and particularly in Portland in 2020. Taking and posting pictures of these people is an important act. It the internet age makes this tactic impossible, it will be a huge win.

The upside is nonexistent anyway: the state is photographing everyone at these events, so you taking an additional photo does not change the risk surface for anyone with regard to state retaliation.

[tehjoker]

I can definitely see this perspective. I'm a bit torn myself on the public event section. The second consideration is, yes they are filming, but just because someone is filming it's not necessarily a useful picture (blurry, low res, bad angle, obstructions, etc). Your picture might be useful especially since you may be closer to the action.

[nxobject]

As another Portlander, disagree with exceptions: surveillance footage made it harder to identify people from top down angles, and it meant that a lot of people had their charges dismissed because of that. (I will need to look it up.) The bigger risk to a protest movement, I would argue, is an opposing agent provocateurs trying to get people doxxed. That risk to more people outweighs getting minority of provocateurs shut down.

(On the other hand, you’re also right that agent provocateurs are old COINTELPRO-era tactics used by the state and right wingers against protest movements.)

When it comes to tactics to keep yourself safe when protesting, there aren’t ultimately too many hard beliefs to be had, especially when the right are perfectly happy to collaborate with the state.

[rightbyte]

>The bigger risk to a protest movement, I would argue, is an opposing agent provocateurs trying to get people doxxed.

That wouldn't be an agent provocateur right?

[philwelch]

I mean there’s two sets of social norms here, right? Set one is that whenever you see the first person advocating or starting to break windows or start fires or do something else illegal, you all point at the guy and chant “fed, fed, fed” until he slinks away in shame or maybe shove him out of the crowd and into the police lines and let the cops handle him. The other set of norms is that when you see people do those things, you don’t snitch. Various protesters will adopt either set of norms.

Maybe you’d argue that the second set of protesters are actually feds; I won’t argue the point because I prefer the first set of norms myself.

[hyperadvanced]

> there was basically no point

Other good reads on this include the end of protest, the end of the end of history, capitalist realism