If Jow Forums believes everyone is entitled to anonymity on the internet...

>being retarded

Post your face in this thread right now, kike.

see there's a need for it online, not in person, since you physically have to be present to cause harm.

>no one can cause you physical harm online that's why you need anonymity online
>people can cause you physical harm irl, that's why you don't need anonymity irl
How does it feel being a negative iq shitter?

Ideally yes.
Realistically were not in a place where that would be a good thing.

you don't want to see the face of a brainlet when he gets angry like you do and hits you in the face so you can identify and sue them? who would you need a personal identity linked to literally everything you search for online? the latter is linked to your intellect, the first is linked to being somewhere in person.

fpbp and /thread.

>šöýgoy starts moving goalposts like the pathetic, scared, pseudo that he is
>hurr, what about muh sue-shekels
Nice strokeposting, retarded kike. Take that dick out of your mouth and post your face along with the image of where you live. Why are you scared? No one can physically hurt you online you know.

>missing the point
i'm going to use the privacy i advocate for online and not do that

>you literally cannot cause harm online
Lol
>that's why you need to hide before you shitpost bro
Ok incel

*punches you*
Shut up nerd.

ouch! wtf man! why did you do that?!

>you literally cannot cause harm online
sorry i have to correct this: you literally cannot cause harm online unless the person you are targeting has no intellect

Imagine living in 2019, posting on a technology board, thinking people should be allowed to be in public anonymously, but thinking covering one's face in public should be a crime. It's almost like facial recognition has been a proven technology for a few years guys.

there shouldn't be face recognition cameras in public

What really should happen is police should step in when assault occurs, rip off the masks of any offender then charge them accordingly.

This is Portland though, one of the most cucked cities in the US. If anyone who isn't a deranged lunatic still chooses to live there, they deserve to drown in their own misery.

>upset fag
lol

>supporting antifa
I'm just correctly labeling you a retard. Not my fault you were born with a brain defect.

illegal to cover your face in public. illegal to record in public. illegal to process images or video from a public place.

Have you ever thought something shouldn't be a crime?

I hope I get to milkshake you one day bb

Fpbp
You’re only anonymous to other civilians online anyway. If you do something really illegal the feds can find you

not just faggots, commie faggots lmao

kys antifashitter

Attached: 1526387750462.jpg (565x871, 73K)

have you ever thought out your sentences? where does it state that?

yes
a scarf on face also very effective against tear gas if you hold it strong enough quick

Yes

>>states that covering one's face in public should be illegal, but that being in public anonymously should be allowed.
>>reminded that facial recognition means showing one's face means being identifiable.
>>Advocates for the government banning certain methods of processing video recorded in public.
>>Told they want the government to control what you wear on your face and what you do with your video data.
>>WHERE DID I SAY I WANTED TO BAN ANYTHING?

You're a fucking idiot.

covering your face in public should be illegal AND thus they shouldn't be allowed to track you personally in public.
facial recognition tracking in public SHOULD be illegal since you can track someone personally
you should need someone's consent if you're a third party recording someone else in public, with a few exceptions such as evidence.
you don't have to go to extremes to allow everything or allow nothing. use common sense on what is right.

>supporting antifa
lol what? work on your reading comprehension you stupid faggot.

yes absolutely yes

Attached: shake.gif (412x384, 1.3M)

>legal to record in public
>legal to process picture or videos in public

>...UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE IN THE PICTURE YOU CAN IDENTIFY AND YOU DON'T HAVE THAT PERSON'S CONSENT
are you literally that retarded, to not understand this concept?

the state has to balance the ability to properly enforce the law of the land with the rights of individuals. it is a delicate issue

it shouldn't be illegal to wear a mask in public, but wearing a mask to a protest to get away with committing acts of violence should be a very serious crime to deter wide eyed teenagers from falling for the bullshit 'punch a nazi' propaganda that makes them think they're doing a good thing by doing this

the entire antifa movement is a political machine created by the democratic party to create violence at protests to chip away at people's freedom by using this exact line of rhetoric and reasoning to do so.

Yes, just make it so you get like ten times the penalty if you commit a crime masked.

>>Legal to record in a public place unless a member of the public is there.
>>Government should monitor what sort of processing is done to video data to make sure no one is running illegal facial recognition software.

There's are so many reasons why no state in the US has these laws. You're a straight up stupid person for suggesting this stuff.

>no state does this
yes there are states that do both.