13 ms·
A brief history of government efforts to stop people from wearing masks
- the-dude 7y agoThe Netherlands has introduced a ban on face-covering masks this year, but the ban is restricted to public places like public transport, schools and governmental institutions. Although the current interest is probably related to HK, the ban in The Netherlands seems to be related to the introduction of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa in the public domain.
- vinay427 7y agoProbably still better than Ticino in Switzerland, which banned face-coverings in public to apparently target burqas but instead of making setting-dependent exceptions, made exceptions for health and safety (reasonable) as well as local festivals (i.e. protecting some traditions but not others). https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/ticino-burka-ban-hits-football-fans-the-hardest/44306466 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/ticino-burka-ban-hits-football-...
- josh_fyi 7y agoThe article makes good pro-mask points. But--as is not mentioned in the article--some such laws have been passed to stop violence from groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
- bobwaycott 7y agoThis particular point was very uncompelling and lazy (to be clear, I'm pointing the finger at the article, not you). The Klan didn't get away with horrific acts of violence because they were legally allowed to wear masks—they got away with it because it was socially acceptable to terrorize, beat up, lynch, and kill people who were not WASPs. The police and other civic leaders were often members, and even when they weren't, they had tacit and sometimes direct alliances with Klan members. This led to law enforcement looking the other way when violent acts occurred, and they simply did not enforce plenty of existing laws that made the Klan's violent behaviors already illegal. Plenty of violence occurred without masks on. And even when the masks were on, law enforcement had more than enough cause to arrest people and unmask them. Arresting, prosecuting, and convicting individuals who engaged in already-illegal acts of racially motivated violence is what stopped Klan violence. Beyond that, brave infiltration efforts to expose their inner workings and publicizing membership lists contributed further. An endless stream of newspaper articles documenting and decrying Klan activity as un-American helped, too. Yes, the anonymity provided by the hoods emboldened horrible people to threaten and intimidate others, as well as commit horrific acts of violence. But the violence happened because it was allowed. Suggesting anti-mask laws stopped the Klan only whitewashes the past—and absolves political leaders, law enforcement, and American society itself, of their central role in allowing that violence to happen for decades. Klan violence didn't stop because masks became illegal—it stopped when people refused to continue looking the other way. And it took way too long for that to happen.
- ufmace 7y agoThat's mostly true, but I think you're going a little too hard against the role of the anti-mask laws. Nobody is saying they were the main weapon against the Klan or were essential or anything like that. They were a useful weapon against them though. I don't have solid sources on this, but I'm pretty sure the masks were most useful for Plausible Deniability. Local officials didn't really want to fight the Klan, true. They still had to answer to State and Federal officials and out-of-state newspapers though. Klan members wearing masks allow them to claim to anybody asking tough questions that they can't do anything more against those people because they don't know who they are. (And allow them to deny some of them are infact members) It's often tough to discuss logistics issues like this on boards. Everybody wants to find One Big Reason for something, and declare every other reason irrelevant. In reality, most large efforts to solve large issues require lots of different tactics. Often, no one tactic is "key" or "essential", but they all help out a little to achieve a goal. Taking away any one won't doom you or anything, but it will make things take a little longer and go a little harder.
- bobwaycott 7y agoI’ll leave you with some quick thoughts: — I wasn’t searching for one big reason, and I wasn’t declaring all other reasons irrelevant. I provided several reasons that are exceedingly well documented in Klan-focused histories for the decline of Klan violence (seriously, go read some histories and see how prominently mask laws play in the events). — Alabama passed the first anti-mask law in the South in 1949—roughly 20 years after the national (2nd) Klan and its violent activities had been exposed and its membership severely dwindled (turning the Klan into a splintered group of uncoordinated and smaller local and state groups). — The post-WW2 (3rd) Klan had alliances all the way up the local, county, and state-level political and legal ladder. They had direct alliances with governors. Local officials weren’t having to deny anything, because there was rarely anyone to answer to higher up the chain. In the states this occurred, hooded Klansmen weren’t really a thing like the 2nd Klan, and the violence continued without masks. The feds didn’t get involved until way late—FBI and the like cared about chasing communists more than they did Klan violence when it mattered. — The 3rd Klan became a notable and present force of violence and intimidation throughout the South after the Alabama anti-mask law (and the other state laws that followed) — The Klan robes and hoods most people envision were a staple of the 2nd Klan, and basically copied the costumes in Birth of a Nation—that is, 20+ years before mask laws (when they might have been helpful; at that time Klan membership numbered 3M-6M). — The first and second Klan were organized and national. The third Klan was local and state specific, and never reached the membership levels of the former—yet mask laws didn’t stop Klan violence during this period. — Alabama is a funny example—it passed the first Southern mask law thanks to a Klan-hating governor, and it later had a Klan-allied governor. By the way, this period and the issues society struggled with was pretty much the focus of my graduate school work, and years of study since.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rjzzleep 7y agoA bunch of European countries have this. Some for several decades. Germany has had it for 3 and while the law states that its punishment is up to one year of prison, states seem to have in general reduced the sentence to 500-1500 Euros. [1] Not really arguing pro or against, but I do find there to be a bit of hypocrisy in the media coverage. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law
- spacehunt 7y agoIn most if not all of these countries, the police have proper, clearly marked identification on them. Not so in Hong Kong.
- blub 7y ago...identification that they remove or lose before knocking some protesters over the head. Obviously China and HK are pathological cases, but police correctness in Europe also seems to be overrated. There was a bloodbath in Italy at the G8 summit. UK, France and Germany are better, but there's still cases of police brutality.
- tvxtergd 7y agoFrance better? There, the bloodbath has lasted a year so far!
- spacehunt 7y agoLook, did the police in Italy go right next to your house and tear gassed the whole residential area? That's my personal experience last night. I was just outside my home, not at a protest. And now I can't even put on respirators to protect myself.
- 74353throw 7y agoThe police in Philadelphia bombed an entire neighborhood. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing
- kawsper 7y agoIn Denmark police will video record demonstrators face really close by, some suspect they use it for feeding facedetection from Palantir. Disguising your face is also illegal in Denmark.
- runj__ 7y agoYeah, it's not weird that the laws are coming now that the police (and by extension the government) have the technology to actually use our faces. The protestors in Hong Kong really do have a reason to protect their identities from China, so do (peaceful) protestors from any state. Freedom of speech should be allowed for anonymous persons as well.
- mrobot 7y agoHK protesters are peaceful?
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoThey were for quite awhile until they got sick of being hit.
- 0_gravitas 7y agoExceptionally so, especially when compared to some "protests" seen in the US and some other "First World" countries, and the stakes of those protests are also usually quite low compared to HK. I've actually been extremely surprised at the restraint shown.
- Miner49er 7y agoI don't see how this is true at all. HKers are regularly brawling with police. I haven't seen that happen at a protest in the United States in my lifetime. If you do that here you get shot.
- 74353throw 7y agoIt started out peaceful but has since turned violent. The police have shown a lot of restraint for sure.
- emptybits 7y agoFrom the article: "Does heavy make-up count as a mask?" Near-future: "Does a full-facial e-ink tattoo, dynamically reconfigurable, count as a mask?"
- lrg 7y agoFacial paint is included in the loose definition of "facial covering" for the HK anti-mask law
- emptybits 7y agoThus, my question about tattoos. :-)
- izzydata 7y agoIf you tattooed your whole face you are basically making yourself more easily identifiable. You can't take it off so you are now the guy with the full face tattoo. But I doubt they could outlaw your face. What are they going to do? Cut your face off?
- michaelt 7y agoTattoo your face with Mickey Mouse. Disney's copyright lawyers will then keep you out of facial recognition databases.
- izzydata 7y agoTattoo your face with Winnie the Pooh. I suspect that won't go over well in China.
- emptybits 7y agoI suggested a full-face e-ink tattoo, dynamically reconfigurable. A programmable tattoo. Turn it on. Turn it off. Raise your cheekbones. Add a third eye. Or wrinkles and freckles and a bruise. Turn on some lip gloss and eye shadow. Change your skin tone. Confound image processing. Have some fun. > If you tattooed your whole face you are basically making yourself more easily identifiable. Turn it on and off and configure it as desired. E-pigment sits under your skin. Unlike a mask, it's part of you but only when you want it to be. I think this could reduce identifiability.
- pionerkotik 7y agoEstonia has had a mask ban since around 2008 I think, after the Bronze Night riots. [1] This does produce ridiculous results occasionally. My friend was briefly detained by the police for wearing a ski mask on a long winter walk. It was -25°C outside. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Night https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Night
- Miner49er 7y agoThere's been a lot of talk in the U.S. of anti-mask legislation because of antifascists. A federal bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6054/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6054... There's also been a lot of talk at local levels.
- Merrill 7y agoI don't recall the use of masks being prevalent during either the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations or the Civil Rights demonstrations of the '50s and '60s. The adoption of masks is probably driven by the digital imaging chip and the ubiquity of digital photos and videos. If the police don't image you, your friends and the media probably will.
- taneq 7y agoI've seen multiple reports during the current round of Hong Kong riots of China sympathizers aggressively filming the faces of protesters. The whole "we'll get a photo of you protesting and then deal with you later" thing is a central theme in these protests.
- Merrill 7y agoSo imaging technology can be used to facilitate inter-group conflict as well as governmental oppression.
- ackbar03 7y agoAggressively filming protestors? Are you sure? https://video.h5.weibo.cn/1034:4423697482642911/4423697639229801 https://video.h5.weibo.cn/1034:4423697482642911/442369763922... I really don't understand why hackernews is so extremely one-sided on this issue. Edit: yeah there we go, down voted immediately.
- muxator 7y agoCan someone please give some context on that video? Who's the boy? What is everyone doing? The video is creepy.
- bakuninsbart 7y agoMy chinese is really terrible, the one guy in the beginning is making fun of white shirt for his accent. He's from the mainland. I don't know the rest of the context, but there have been a lot of racist attacks from the protesters lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was his only crime. The "journalists" are all filming him while a protester beats him up and another "journalist" makes sure he and the woman can't enter the building.
- sebastianconcpt 7y agoAt its core, face mask bans pose a question about power: who gets to wield it, and who gets to place limits on it. The masked person can look but not be seen—an enormous and liberating power particularly in today’s age of surveillance. For the state and those in authority, the mask represents a threat because their power is in part drawn from knowing exactly who you are. For many in Hong Kong, the face mask ban is a reminder of the asymmetrical balance of power that they are protesting so hard against. While citizens are now prohibited from wearing masks in public assemblies, police officers will continue to be able to conceal their identities
- 5trokerac3 7y ago> The masked person can look but not be seen—an enormous and liberating power particularly in today’s age of surveillance. It's only liberating if the masked person acts ethically. As we've seen in Portland, when masked "protesters" commit violence against civilians, it's the antithesis of "liberating". Remember that the anti-mask laws in the US south were enacted to limit the nefarious actions of the Klan. IMO, HK has gone so far that the masks are a fake sense of security. The police will drag you off, mask and all, and know exactly who you are. Either the HK people have to accept using guerrilla tactics or they will eventually be swallowed by the CCP.
- baud147258 7y agoHere in France, at most protests you'd find groups of masked 'protestors' who usually have nothing to do with the protest and are just here for acts of violence against the police and random acts of degradation and looting
- 5trokerac3 7y agoDon't forget masked "protesters" who are actually police infiltrators attempting to turn a protest violent.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- theboulevardier 7y agoThe UK police have been able to do this for a while. I haven't been involved in activism for years now, but if I remember correctly they used to be able to make people remove face masks within a particular area during demonstrations.
- immmmmm 7y agoIf your goal is to evade biometric recognition by your local oppressive government: try makeup:) I work in the field and can tell you that 1) it’s cheap and easy 2) no presents sensor technology can detect it 3) detection algorithms will be spoofed and confused 99% of the time if well done. And it’s not a mask ;)
- hajile 7y agoGas masks deal with CS gas (I find it ironic that CS gas is banned by the Geneva conventions, but using it against civilians is fine). Goggles reduce the chances of eye injury due to debris, rubber bullets, police batons, etc. A decent face mask extends this protection to the rest of the face.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoAs are dum dum bullets - which is even weirder
- Merrill 7y agoSoft, expanding bullets stop more easily when they hit something. Full metal jacket military bullets penetrate things like auto bodies, walls, etc, and pose a greater threat to innocent bystanders. Plus, the real reason is that in war, wounding the other side is better than killing, since the wounded have to be treated, evacuated, supported, etc., and their presence is demoralizing to the enemy.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoIts an offence against the Geneva convention, NATO militaries are worried they will be accused of war crimes if they introduce bullets that could be considered dum dums
- Merrill 7y agoActually the 1899 Hague Convention, and the US is not a signatory. The US reserves the right to use expanding bullets when there is a clear military necessity. Until 2010 the prohibition only applied to warfare between military units, not to combat with irregular or civilians units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet
- imtringued 7y agoGovernments want to secure their ability to remove your eyeballs with the help of 40mm grenade launchers that shoot "non lethal" rubber projectiles.
- jkaptur 7y agoKeep in mind that facial recognition is probably only one part of a modern identification pipeline. There's every reason to think that some sort of gait signature, history of clothing purchases, and cellular data could be combined to identify a person with some level of confidence, to say nothing of simply blanketing a city with enough cameras to "rewind" back to when the person didn't have the mask on.
- Invictus0 7y agoGait detection not likely to be useful in a massive crowd. Clothes are not custom, change over time, and can't be used to identify someone because they aren't linked to an identity (Joe buys John a shirt as a gift; John buys his son a shirt; etc.). I suppose rewinding is possible but the computational cost of doing this for thousands of people is probably immense.
- seph-reed 7y agoNot with eye in the sky tech.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoA bit lacking, Bans on masks started in renaissance Europe , with people only being allowed to wear them during carnival.
- hprotagonist 7y agoone of my favorite historical antecedents is a document from the 12th century in london in which local businessmen and authorities are complaining about the hooded apprentices who get off work, get drunk, and start trouble in the streets. Some things are truly eternal. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584317/Hoodies-were-the-scourge-of-Medieval-London.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584317/Hoodies-were...
- mandelbrotwurst 7y agoOne bit of this that I've always found interesting is that it makes it just a little bit harder to suppress dissent in cities in colder climates. Of course, cold tends to have a literal "chilling effect" on activity as well (see: crime rates in summer)!
- jpambrun 7y agoMontreal did the same thing during student protests in 2012 [1]. It came along with another special law enacted to restrict protests[2]. Both were later contested and dropped. In my opinion that was extremely unproductive. It galvanized protests even further and the most common chant became "la loi special on s'en calisse" (roughly "we don't give a shit about your special law") as we were defying it. In essence, it just eroded police and state authority for an entire generation. I still strongly feel that I don't have to follow laws that I find immoral or unethical. I am not sure this is good. [1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A8glement_P-6 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A8glement_P-6 [2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_78_(Qu%C3%A9bec) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_78_(Qu%C3%A9bec)
- ssalka 7y ago> I still strongly feel that I don't have to follow laws that I find immoral or unethical. I am not sure this is good. I think that is definitely good. If everyone followed laws simply because "it's the law" then no one would ever think critically about whether those laws were morally justifiable or not, or if they did they would shrug it off because "breaking the law is wrong". But such questions are important to ask, and while it may be impractical for _everybody_ to do so, I'm glad there are people like me & you that pay attention to whether the law is actually making the world better or not. (obviously, determining whether a law is ethical or not can be very tricky; you can't just go around breaking laws because you don't agree with them - there needs to be e.g. clear moral ground indicating that there is some collective thought that the law is immoral/unethical)
- darawk 7y agoOn the other hand, if everyone follows only the laws they think are moral, you're going to have to accept the civil disobedience of those that disagree with you as well.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- 7y ago
- pseingatl 7y agoThe Republic of Venice restricted the use of masks in the 18th century. Nothing new here.
- yoyoyooma 7y agoJust wear a burqa instead, they wouldn't dare complaining about it...
- greggman2 7y agoWow, I can't imagine that going over here in Japan. Nearly the entire population wears masks when sick or when trying to avoid getting sick. They're sold in every convenience store, all different kinds, paper, cloth, foam, with or without various medicinal stuff added. They are also a problem for anyone who has an iPhone with FaceID
- jessriedel 7y agoNoticeably absent from this discussion: Anti-mask laws as a method to combat terrorism from the Ku Klux Klan. Presumably no one is talking about it because it complicates the simple protestors-good/government-bad story. > Many anti-mask laws date back to the mid-20th century when states and municipalities, passed them to stop the violent activities of the Ku Klux Klan, whose members typically wore hoods of white linen to conceal their identities.... > A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a New York law on the ground that wearing a Ku Klux Klan mask did not convey a protected message beyond that conveyed by wearing a hood and robe.[2] Other courts have struck down anti-mask laws. For example, Tennessee and Florida state laws have been invalidated on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally broad.[10] An ordinance in Goshen, Indiana, was struck down based on First Amendment doctrine that specifically protects anonymous speech and anonymous association, especially for unpopular groups like the KKK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law > In 1845 New York made it illegal to appear “disguised and armed.” Most anti-mask laws [in the US] were passed, however, in response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members used masks to hide their identities as they terrorized their victims. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1169/anti-mask-laws https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1169/anti-mask-... > In the United States, anti-mask laws were first passed in the 19th century to combat various threats of violence—among them, the killing of Hudson Valley landlords by tenant farmers who dressed up as American Indians, and also the growing violence of the Ku Klux Klan. http://jtl.columbia.edu/the-inexorable-anti-mask-movement/ http://jtl.columbia.edu/the-inexorable-anti-mask-movement/ Here's a serious analysis of how one might tailor an anti-mask law while avoiding the most serious free-speech issues, at least in the narrow sense of passing constitutional muster in the US. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3009&context=flr https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=30...
- Wohlf 7y agoThis rarely gets mentioned, same as the racist history of gun control.