Here's a US law enforcement trainer, writing about what law enforcement agencies need to do around peaceful protests:
> Law enforcement officers must monitor peaceful protests to identify individuals who might do harm and incite violence. Such individuals should be detained, isolated or interviewed to determine if they are a threat to the peaceful assembly.
All of this is a side-show, though. If I take a photo at a protest, how do I know what harm would come from publishing any faces that I happen to capture? You seem to be making the argument that I, as a private citizen, shouldn't have a tool available to ensure that I'm not doing harm. Who does that serve?
The fundamental core of your argument seems to be that if people have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. That is, and always was, bullshit.
What's wrong with the argument? At any rate it is all besides the point. The only feasible usecase for this signal face blurring is coordinating illegal activity. Any other use doesn't make sense for the reasons I've given a couple times.
