6 ms·

California bans masks meant to hide law enforcement officers' identities

135 points by 1659447091 1y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
They're just going say that they're federal and not bound by state law, aren't law enforcement they're immigration enforcement, or that they're undercover.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - grayhatter 1y ago
    I didn't, but if I would have down voted you it was because I'm not sure I believe you, and you didn't cite law, statue, or court decision confirming your claim. Or explain why you claim to believe that... Both would be important parts of a useful comment. Perhaps the problem isn't disagreement, but your comment was just low effort that appears to come from anger and frustration?
    - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - grayhatter 1y ago
        > I didn't feel the need to cite a fundamental tenet of US history. That omission is why you got downvoted though. I also don't think they can just ignore state law without an existing federal law allowing them to ignore it. Is there an existing federal law that says they can wear masks?
      - grayhatter 1y ago
        Because your other toxic comments are getting flagged, I felt this one deserved a response. > Show me the law that says my nosy neighbor should be allowed to walk over to my house and demand to know the names of the cops are who are talking to me, and force them to reveal what crime I am being accused of, what evidence they have, etc. The US has constantly upheld the rights of the citizens to record the actions of police. But it's also explicitly required by law in CA The right to record: CA Penal Code 1. 15. 1.5 - Section 632. > [right to privacy from being recorded] but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded. Uniform police are required to wear identification: CA Penal Code 2.3 4.5 - Peace Officers Section 830.10. > 830.10. Any uniformed peace officer shall wear a badge, nameplate, or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer. In addition to that most police departments (maybe all of them) in CA have policies that officers need to identify clear themselves when asked. It's also interesting to watch some of the "audit the police" videos on youtube. The asshole cops never want to identify, but the good ones behaving like cops you'd want to interact with, are all eager to share their identity. There's one video I remember where a cop, who was being a shitbag, said "we don't have cards" when asked for one, and two other cops also there, the ones worthy of being cops, instantly corrected him and both gave their card to him. So quickly I'm sure it's department policy to do so. One of them giving the shitbag cop the stink eye for lying to him. Good cops don't feel the need to hide who they are. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-1/title-15/chapter-1-5/section-632/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-1/titl... https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-2/title-3/chapter-4-5/section-830-10/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-2/titl...
        tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
        No one is talking about "recording". Of course you can record anyone in a public space. You're moving the goalposts. Also lol @ "toxic". Sometimes I forget that people can be offended by insufficient outrage.
        1y ago
- rolph 1y ago
  the real rub comes when someone tries to restrict the movements of federal "agents" into or within the state.
  - blackqueeriroh 1y ago
    The right to restrict those movements has already been upheld in court multiple times
    - rolph 1y ago
      i have a gut feeling that adverse court dispositions mean very little to the federal government anymore.
- jrs235 1y ago
  What ever happened to "States Rights!"?
  - mixmastamyk 1y ago
    Lincoln ended most of those.
- pm90 1y ago
  Federal agents are 100% bound by State laws. Unless there is a Federal law that overturns the state law, Federal agents absolutely have to obey.
  - piltdownman 1y ago
    Under previous administrations? Not entirely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/LiabilityofaFederalOfficerunderStateLaw.html https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/LiabilityofaFederalOfficerun... Under the current administration? Not at all https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/18/ice-nyc-protest-00572418 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/18/ice-nyc-protest-005...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > They're just going say that they're federal and not bound by state law Sure. But hopefully they'll be saying that while one of their own is being charged.
- dmatech 1y ago
  In theory, the actual individuals are still bound by state law, but the supremacy clause allows federal laws made in pursuance of the US Constitution to preempt those state laws. Of course, these laws still need to be "necessary and proper" for carrying out an express power like regulating immigration. A law that is unnecessary or improper would theoretically not hold up in court. The same goes for executive action. Perhaps the most infamous case of this was the Idaho manslaughter case against FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi for killing Vicki Weaver in the Ruby Ridge incident. His case was simply "removed" to federal court and dismissed under the supremacy clause (although this dismissal was later overturned narrowly when appealed).
JKCalhoun 1y ago
I'm surprised this needed to be a law. Or wasn't already one? Or maybe I'm just surprised that a group of law enforcement officers would decide, "Hey, we don't want people to know who we are," and decide to wear masks. "…I think this is what the state of California is trying to do. Establish limits as to how much the federal government can do within the jurisdiction of the state. It's an issue of state sovereignty." More of the Cold Civil War playing out. (Also see coastal states forming health cooperatives (?) so that their citizens can get COVID vaccines, etc.)
- BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
  > Or maybe I'm just surprised that a group of law enforcement officers would decide, "Hey, we don't want people to know who we are," and decide to wear masks. It would be nice to be surprised. It _should_ be surprising. It's unfortunately not surprising at all.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    Youth services has been hiding the names of their employees for more than a decade now. A few years back the final shoe dropped: now kids aren't even allowed to know the name of the judge that took them away from their home anymore. They cite, of course, the same argument ICE makes: threats against them. Is that legal? Well, their theory is that any kind of "family law" proceeding (including convicting minors of crimes, and locking them up without access to family or schooling for years) is considered civil law. Therefore none of the normal legal rights apply. I would think this is trivially a violation of the constitution, especially because it comes to imprisonment, but clearly it is not, since the justice department has no problems doing it. A child can be locked up for a crime (up to when they get 27 years old, yes, not 18, in some states), even if the present proof they didn't do it. The very, very, very basic legal right to not get convicted of a crime that you didn't do is openly violated by youth services. Right to have a trial? Nope. Right to having the state prove their case? Nope. Right to not get locked up without cause? No. Etc. Needless to say, this was promptly exploited by some states who gave kickbacks to judges who "delivered" juveniles for private detention facilities. When caught doing this, the justice department promptly declared nobody had done anything wrong (except one of the judges who, in addition to having thousands of kids locked up for money, had lied on his taxes. He was never actually imprisoned, and finally pardoned by the president) Oh and in case you don't know: locking minors away from school? Yes. Youth services does that. Parents aren't allowed to do that. Schools aren't allowed to do that. The police isn't allowed to do that (minor gets arrested, and wants to go to classes or do your homework? Police has to make it happen). Fucking death row isn't allowed to keep a minor out of school. But youth services IS allowed to do it. So a secret police in the US? This is not new. What's new is that immigration enforcement started doing it on a large scale.
grayhatter 1y ago
> They didn't ban criminals from wearing masks, they didn't tell criminals that they had to identify themselves," Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots. I question the intelligence of suggesting that police should be held to the same standard as criminals. "If the bad guys can do it, we should be able to do it!" Is a wild take. The core tenet that makes someone the good guy is "we treat them better than they would treat us". It's so disappointing to see the people who are supposed to be the good guys advocating they should be able to be as cruel as the bad guys they exist to prevent. Am I missing something? > Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots. holy shit, "eliminated" is not the appropriate word here... what is wrong with this guy? (other than uncontrolled anger?)
- lazide 1y ago
  The part you’re confused by is the ‘supposed to be the good guys’.
- mrangle 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - grayhatter 1y ago
    > Yes, what you're missing is that you are intentionally conflating "same standard" when you imply that the criminal standard is voluntary and the LE standard is legal. This is hard for me to parse, what are you trying to say? > See your quip about the criminals "than they would treat us" and "able to be as cruel". Voluntary behavior of the criminals. Which is not under discussion. No, you misunderstood what I was trying to explain. The concept I was trying to explain and reinforce was that the cops should be the good guys. Good compared to what? The behavior of criminals. So it is a part of the expectations for the behavior of police. Or in other words, it's a mistake for Bianco to set the standard of behavior for the good guys, at the level of behavior we see from the bad guys. We should hold cops to a higher standard. I.e. like you, I agree that it's wrong to compare the actions of police to the actions of criminals. everyone should hold the actions of police on their own, an ask is this what the good guy would do?
typeofhuman 1y ago
[flagged]
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - typeofhuman 1y ago
    [flagged]
- grayhatter 1y ago
  Because California understands (or at least some of us do) the catastrophic effect on public safety if the general population starts to feel like they can't trust the police. Police using masks is so dehumanizing, and causes fear and confusion among most citizens, that it will cause the loss of trust and that can't be permitted because it's nearly impossible to restore trust once it's lost. > Why is California going after the people enforcing the law instead of the ones breaking it? oh, was this a bad faith question? did I get baited?
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - grayhatter 1y ago
      Last night? Tonight? I mean, people have anxiety about some things, but I don't. And I would gladly walk around any street in CA, you're welcome to join me for a walk in any area you choose?
    - habinero 1y ago
      Plenty of times? What on earth do you think it's like there lol
  - typeofhuman 1y ago
puppycodes 1y ago
How would they possibly enforce this? Don't Feds have immunity to almost everything?
- refurb 1y ago
  California has a long track record of passing laws that don’t really do anything.
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    If by that, you mean that the law won't be obeyed by Trump's little secret police force, you're probably right. I think the law is to start a fight with the Federal government. All they need to do is arrest 1 of them and then it's on. Will it do anything? I dunno, but I'm tired of watching Dems do nothing.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - refurb 1y ago
      No, I don’t mean laws like that. I mean laws like that label near everything as cancer causing.
- hananova 1y ago
  But doesn't claiming that immunity require them to identify themselves as such? In which case identification to claim immunity to the law also happens to involve complying with the law.
ajay-b 1y ago
I don't see how this will be enforceable.
- platevoltage 1y ago
  I do. ICE agents show up hiding their face, Local or State cops put them in handcuffs for breaking the law.
  - sampli 1y ago
    lol. Good luck with that
    - platevoltage 1y ago
      Do ICE agents have super powers or something?
      - sampli 1y ago
        No, but federal law trumps state
        blackqueeriroh 1y ago
        There is no federal law here.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - fknorangesite 1y ago
        Friend, it doesn't take superpowers. It just takes being on the same team.
      - mixmastamyk 1y ago
        Uncle Sam has the biggest military on Earth. State troopers wouldn’t last longer than the time to deploy.
PeterStuer 1y ago
Why do you need their identity though? What are you planning?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Why do you need their identity though? What are you planning? To hold them accountable when they break the law.
  - decremental 1y ago
    [dead]
- dtmooreiv 1y ago
  Why do you want their identities hidden? What are you planning or hoping they're planning?
AngryData 1y ago
I want to say this is good, but if you look at the "exemptions" for when law enforcement wearing masks is fine, it covers basically any and every possible scenario. So to me it just seems a performative act to make it seem like they are doing something while doing nothing at all.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Historically, establishing a right with exceptions then subsequently eliminating those exceptions has been effective method of effecting change in the US government system. E.g. the famous Marbury v. Madison decision that effected no action in that instance but substantially shaped the relationship between the branches by establishing the federal court system's power of judicial review
Jgoauh 1y ago
I don't think the administration will care if their acctions break state law when they already blatantly ignore the supreme cours and the constitution every day. I'm think they should be stopped, but i don't think this will be effective, we need to reflect deeply on why this is happening to create a coherent sound plan as how to stop and prevent it.
euroderf 1y ago
It might also work to require visible badge numbers, but then cops in a situation just put tape over them, without consequences.

135 points by 1659447091 1y ago

They're just going say that they're federal and not bound by state law, aren't law enforcement they're immigration enforcement, or that they're undercover.

tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
[flagged]
- grayhatter 1y ago
  I didn't, but if I would have down voted you it was because I'm not sure I believe you, and you didn't cite law, statue, or court decision confirming your claim. Or explain why you claim to believe that... Both would be important parts of a useful comment. Perhaps the problem isn't disagreement, but your comment was just low effort that appears to come from anger and frustration?
  - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - grayhatter 1y ago
      > I didn't feel the need to cite a fundamental tenet of US history. That omission is why you got downvoted though. I also don't think they can just ignore state law without an existing federal law allowing them to ignore it. Is there an existing federal law that says they can wear masks?
    - grayhatter 1y ago
      Because your other toxic comments are getting flagged, I felt this one deserved a response. > Show me the law that says my nosy neighbor should be allowed to walk over to my house and demand to know the names of the cops are who are talking to me, and force them to reveal what crime I am being accused of, what evidence they have, etc. The US has constantly upheld the rights of the citizens to record the actions of police. But it's also explicitly required by law in CA The right to record: CA Penal Code 1. 15. 1.5 - Section 632. > [right to privacy from being recorded] but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded. Uniform police are required to wear identification: CA Penal Code 2.3 4.5 - Peace Officers Section 830.10. > 830.10. Any uniformed peace officer shall wear a badge, nameplate, or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer. In addition to that most police departments (maybe all of them) in CA have policies that officers need to identify clear themselves when asked. It's also interesting to watch some of the "audit the police" videos on youtube. The asshole cops never want to identify, but the good ones behaving like cops you'd want to interact with, are all eager to share their identity. There's one video I remember where a cop, who was being a shitbag, said "we don't have cards" when asked for one, and two other cops also there, the ones worthy of being cops, instantly corrected him and both gave their card to him. So quickly I'm sure it's department policy to do so. One of them giving the shitbag cop the stink eye for lying to him. Good cops don't feel the need to hide who they are. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-1/title-15/chapter-1-5/section-632/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-1/titl... https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-2/title-3/chapter-4-5/section-830-10/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-2/titl...
      - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
        No one is talking about "recording". Of course you can record anyone in a public space. You're moving the goalposts. Also lol @ "toxic". Sometimes I forget that people can be offended by insufficient outrage.
        1y ago
rolph 1y ago
the real rub comes when someone tries to restrict the movements of federal "agents" into or within the state.
- blackqueeriroh 1y ago
  The right to restrict those movements has already been upheld in court multiple times
  - rolph 1y ago
    i have a gut feeling that adverse court dispositions mean very little to the federal government anymore.
jrs235 1y ago
What ever happened to "States Rights!"?
- mixmastamyk 1y ago
  Lincoln ended most of those.
pm90 1y ago
Federal agents are 100% bound by State laws. Unless there is a Federal law that overturns the state law, Federal agents absolutely have to obey.
- piltdownman 1y ago
  Under previous administrations? Not entirely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/LiabilityofaFederalOfficerunderStateLaw.html https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/LiabilityofaFederalOfficerun... Under the current administration? Not at all https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/18/ice-nyc-protest-00572418 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/18/ice-nyc-protest-005...
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> They're just going say that they're federal and not bound by state law Sure. But hopefully they'll be saying that while one of their own is being charged.
dmatech 1y ago
In theory, the actual individuals are still bound by state law, but the supremacy clause allows federal laws made in pursuance of the US Constitution to preempt those state laws. Of course, these laws still need to be "necessary and proper" for carrying out an express power like regulating immigration. A law that is unnecessary or improper would theoretically not hold up in court. The same goes for executive action. Perhaps the most infamous case of this was the Idaho manslaughter case against FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi for killing Vicki Weaver in the Ruby Ridge incident. His case was simply "removed" to federal court and dismissed under the supremacy clause (although this dismissal was later overturned narrowly when appealed).

JKCalhoun 1y ago

I'm surprised this needed to be a law. Or wasn't already one? Or maybe I'm just surprised that a group of law enforcement officers would decide, "Hey, we don't want people to know who we are," and decide to wear masks. "…I think this is what the state of California is trying to do. Establish limits as to how much the federal government can do within the jurisdiction of the state. It's an issue of state sovereignty." More of the Cold Civil War playing out. (Also see coastal states forming health cooperatives (?) so that their citizens can get COVID vaccines, etc.)

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
> Or maybe I'm just surprised that a group of law enforcement officers would decide, "Hey, we don't want people to know who we are," and decide to wear masks. It would be nice to be surprised. It _should_ be surprising. It's unfortunately not surprising at all.
- spwa4 1y ago
  Youth services has been hiding the names of their employees for more than a decade now. A few years back the final shoe dropped: now kids aren't even allowed to know the name of the judge that took them away from their home anymore. They cite, of course, the same argument ICE makes: threats against them. Is that legal? Well, their theory is that any kind of "family law" proceeding (including convicting minors of crimes, and locking them up without access to family or schooling for years) is considered civil law. Therefore none of the normal legal rights apply. I would think this is trivially a violation of the constitution, especially because it comes to imprisonment, but clearly it is not, since the justice department has no problems doing it. A child can be locked up for a crime (up to when they get 27 years old, yes, not 18, in some states), even if the present proof they didn't do it. The very, very, very basic legal right to not get convicted of a crime that you didn't do is openly violated by youth services. Right to have a trial? Nope. Right to having the state prove their case? Nope. Right to not get locked up without cause? No. Etc. Needless to say, this was promptly exploited by some states who gave kickbacks to judges who "delivered" juveniles for private detention facilities. When caught doing this, the justice department promptly declared nobody had done anything wrong (except one of the judges who, in addition to having thousands of kids locked up for money, had lied on his taxes. He was never actually imprisoned, and finally pardoned by the president) Oh and in case you don't know: locking minors away from school? Yes. Youth services does that. Parents aren't allowed to do that. Schools aren't allowed to do that. The police isn't allowed to do that (minor gets arrested, and wants to go to classes or do your homework? Police has to make it happen). Fucking death row isn't allowed to keep a minor out of school. But youth services IS allowed to do it. So a secret police in the US? This is not new. What's new is that immigration enforcement started doing it on a large scale.

grayhatter 1y ago

> They didn't ban criminals from wearing masks, they didn't tell criminals that they had to identify themselves," Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots. I question the intelligence of suggesting that police should be held to the same standard as criminals. "If the bad guys can do it, we should be able to do it!" Is a wild take. The core tenet that makes someone the good guy is "we treat them better than they would treat us". It's so disappointing to see the people who are supposed to be the good guys advocating they should be able to be as cruel as the bad guys they exist to prevent. Am I missing something? > Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots. holy shit, "eliminated" is not the appropriate word here... what is wrong with this guy? (other than uncontrolled anger?)

lazide 1y ago
The part you’re confused by is the ‘supposed to be the good guys’.
mrangle 1y ago
[flagged]
- grayhatter 1y ago
  > Yes, what you're missing is that you are intentionally conflating "same standard" when you imply that the criminal standard is voluntary and the LE standard is legal. This is hard for me to parse, what are you trying to say? > See your quip about the criminals "than they would treat us" and "able to be as cruel". Voluntary behavior of the criminals. Which is not under discussion. No, you misunderstood what I was trying to explain. The concept I was trying to explain and reinforce was that the cops should be the good guys. Good compared to what? The behavior of criminals. So it is a part of the expectations for the behavior of police. Or in other words, it's a mistake for Bianco to set the standard of behavior for the good guys, at the level of behavior we see from the bad guys. We should hold cops to a higher standard. I.e. like you, I agree that it's wrong to compare the actions of police to the actions of criminals. everyone should hold the actions of police on their own, an ask is this what the good guy would do?

typeofhuman 1y ago

[flagged]

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
[flagged]
- typeofhuman 1y ago
  [flagged]
grayhatter 1y ago
Because California understands (or at least some of us do) the catastrophic effect on public safety if the general population starts to feel like they can't trust the police. Police using masks is so dehumanizing, and causes fear and confusion among most citizens, that it will cause the loss of trust and that can't be permitted because it's nearly impossible to restore trust once it's lost. > Why is California going after the people enforcing the law instead of the ones breaking it? oh, was this a bad faith question? did I get baited?
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - grayhatter 1y ago
    Last night? Tonight? I mean, people have anxiety about some things, but I don't. And I would gladly walk around any street in CA, you're welcome to join me for a walk in any area you choose?
  - habinero 1y ago
    Plenty of times? What on earth do you think it's like there lol
- typeofhuman 1y ago

puppycodes 1y ago

How would they possibly enforce this? Don't Feds have immunity to almost everything?

refurb 1y ago
California has a long track record of passing laws that don’t really do anything.
- platevoltage 1y ago
  If by that, you mean that the law won't be obeyed by Trump's little secret police force, you're probably right. I think the law is to start a fight with the Federal government. All they need to do is arrest 1 of them and then it's on. Will it do anything? I dunno, but I'm tired of watching Dems do nothing.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - refurb 1y ago
    No, I don’t mean laws like that. I mean laws like that label near everything as cancer causing.
hananova 1y ago
But doesn't claiming that immunity require them to identify themselves as such? In which case identification to claim immunity to the law also happens to involve complying with the law.

ajay-b 1y ago

I don't see how this will be enforceable.

platevoltage 1y ago
I do. ICE agents show up hiding their face, Local or State cops put them in handcuffs for breaking the law.
- sampli 1y ago
  lol. Good luck with that
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    Do ICE agents have super powers or something?
    - sampli 1y ago
      No, but federal law trumps state
      - blackqueeriroh 1y ago
        There is no federal law here.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - fknorangesite 1y ago
      Friend, it doesn't take superpowers. It just takes being on the same team.
    - mixmastamyk 1y ago
      Uncle Sam has the biggest military on Earth. State troopers wouldn’t last longer than the time to deploy.

PeterStuer 1y ago

Why do you need their identity though? What are you planning?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Why do you need their identity though? What are you planning? To hold them accountable when they break the law.
- decremental 1y ago
  [dead]
dtmooreiv 1y ago
Why do you want their identities hidden? What are you planning or hoping they're planning?

AngryData 1y ago

I want to say this is good, but if you look at the "exemptions" for when law enforcement wearing masks is fine, it covers basically any and every possible scenario. So to me it just seems a performative act to make it seem like they are doing something while doing nothing at all.

ethbr1 1y ago
Historically, establishing a right with exceptions then subsequently eliminating those exceptions has been effective method of effecting change in the US government system. E.g. the famous Marbury v. Madison decision that effected no action in that instance but substantially shaped the relationship between the branches by establishing the federal court system's power of judicial review

Jgoauh 1y ago

I don't think the administration will care if their acctions break state law when they already blatantly ignore the supreme cours and the constitution every day. I'm think they should be stopped, but i don't think this will be effective, we need to reflect deeply on why this is happening to create a coherent sound plan as how to stop and prevent it.

euroderf 1y ago

It might also work to require visible badge numbers, but then cops in a situation just put tape over them, without consequences.