[JumpCrisscross]

> Should a person I don't like really have rights, or privacy?

For a society striking a British balance between security and privacy, I'd say it's fair to require people with violent convictions to (a) register public protests they plan to attend and (b) consent to facial-recognition surveillance in public. (One could hash, locally store and potentially hardware enforce the restriction on the device level.)

That doesn't mean I think it's okay for everyone around him to have to give up those rights. And I wouldn't support even that in America unless the individual is on probation.

[pessimizer]

People need to be allowed to speak in public without having their identities recorded by the police. Also, if you want to follow somebody around who has "violent convictions," you don't have to release them, you can parole them ("released on license" I think I want to say?)

There's a reason you choose to do this during a political protest.

Also, you included a bunch of gambling and tax debts for some reason? Do you think that they are justified because he, and the people who join him, will be publicly avoiding taxes and bookies?

edit: It's also important to note that in the 15th year of future Reform rule, when a "reformed" Tommy Robinson is appointed Home Secretary, he will entirely support drones doing facial recognition during protests. How else are you supposed to catch the anti-Semites?

[JumpCrisscross]

> People need to be allowed to speak in public without having their identities recorded by the police

Sure. But this isn't an absolute right. To be trivial, you don't have the right to do fraud in public without being recorded by the police.

I'm saying for a convicted violent criminal, particularly one with a history of inciting violence, I think there is a place where a reasonable line could exist.

> you included a bunch of gambling and tax debts

Where did I do this?

[mmooss]

Oppressive governments have long used the tactic of using invalid or irrelevant convictions to legalize all kinds of ways to control and abuse their targets. They can usually find some law that is being violated - the legal code is enormous - at least sufficient to arrest people and make their lives difficult. Also, they can pass laws that criminalize behavior that their political enemies engage in.

In the US, the constitutional amendment banning slavery makes an exception for people in prison; you can guess who gets imprisoned. I've read (can't confirm) that in the 1970s, Nixon's criminalization marijuana was intended for oppressing black people and left-wingers, who were the predominant users of it. Since then the US has used mass incarceration, partly a result of that War on Drugs policy. Also, long post-release probation periods are also used to control people; look up the rapper Meek Mill, for example. Most recently, authorities in many countries have found many reasons to arrest left-wing protestors such as pro-Palestinian activists, sometimes applying very serious charges.

I'm not writing here in favor of the causes Tommy Robinson, Reform UK, left-wingers, or pro-Palestinian protestors. I'm writing about freedom; we've long known that if you can take it from some, you can take it from anybody.

How do you allow the surveillance of the entire Tommy Robinson protest, or even just Robinson, and yet protect freedom? Are our freedoms lost forever if we are convicted once?

[selfhoster1312]

> it's fair to require people with violent convictions to (a) register public protests they plan to attend and (b) consent to facial-recognition

I don't think it is, for many reasons. One is most "violent convictions" are in fact bullshit; at least here in France it's very common to get condemned for violence against officers of the law (« violences sur PDAP ») despite ample video evidence of the contrary (i.e. being assaulted by the cops).

Another one is unlike protective measures against harassment and in-person violence, which are meant to keep a person's physical/mental peace, who do we protect by pre-preventing someone from protesting? If a person effectively assaults someone, then let them get condemned for that crime. How is it acceptable for an administration to decide that someone is going to commit a crime in the future?

Likewise, facial recognition is wrong for many reasons. Not only because it's many times wrong in its assessments, making innocent people face severe consequences. But also because in the cases when it's right, it's gonna be used against do-gooders, just like every power given to the State.

Two examples from here in France: the laws about dissolving non-profits were invented in the 30s against fascist militias, however in the next years (even before the war) they were used against anti-colonial/anti-racist leagues. They've been used again lately against ecological and antifascist groups. Likewise, the laws about "associations de malfaiteurs" designed to help combat the mafia have in fact been used and abused to imprison activist groups.