[echoangle]

Well the whole point of hiding your tracks is evading law enforcement, why would you care if it’s illegal? Or is it because of the „only do one crime at a time“ thing?

[giantg2]

Why do you assume this is about doing illegal things? This is about protests, many of which never turn into riots or illegal acts.

[echoangle]

I was thinking along the lines of „the state wants to oppress the protestors and makes it illegal“, but if you just want to avoid surveillance at a legal protest, yeah, you’re right.

[JumpCrisscross]

Going into a protest with illegal communication devices is almost a direct sabotage of the protest's intent. It gives law enforcement a legitimate reason to act, even if almost certainly ex post facto. And it paints the protest as wilfully illegal--you went in intending to break the law.

[paulryanrogers]

If you're protesting an oppressive regime then it's likely most privacy respecting methods are illegal.

[XorNot]

If you're attending a protest with a phone, the cell tower ping will deanonymize you anyway.

[keybored]

The state has every reason (for itself) to demand perfect law-abiding behavior. The abstract Protest’s intent does not.

[mathieuh]

“If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” right? That’s the same logic politicians are using to make spying on populations legal.

[dostick]

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." - Ed Snowden

[Gud]

No one was arguing this.

It’s possible to have encrypted communications without fucking up public parts of the spectrum.

[BrandonMarc]

Hiding from surveillance is not the same as planning to do something illegal.

... but it benefits the state if people think it's the same ...

[hulitu]

> Well the whole point of hiding your tracks is evading law enforcement, why would you care if it’s illegal?

Because it will make you an easy target.