IMSI catchers aren't observing things in plain sight; they're invasive searches that the Fourth Amendment prohibits outside of narrowly-defined circumstances.

The First Amendment precludes protected political speech from being used as a basis for such a search.

The Fourth Amendment further prohibits dragnet searches of indefinite groups of people, such as a protest, because it requires a warrant to "particularly describe" the "person or things to be seized". (The "Particularity Clause").

I fully agree with your comment in the different case, which is not this case, where government merely passively observes things happening in a public space. IMSI catchers are different; one way being, in that a Stingray *actively interacts with* a device, without authorization, by sending it corrupted packets. (So I understand). A second way being that it violates general social expectations of what's in "public" and what's in "private"; by analogy, if police used laser microphones to listen in on faraway conversations; or in public crowds, used terahertz radiation to look under people's clothes; those are non-public searches, any pedantic interpretations of physics notwithstanding.

Courts have repeatedly held that the government cannot chill lawful protest activity by imposing undue surveillance or intimidation. Sure, there is no explicit “right to anonymity,” but the Supreme Court has recognized in cases like NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that forced disclosure of membership lists can violate First Amendment rights, because it deters participation and chills association.

Of course, the Fourth Amendment also has clauses against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it's easy to see, from modern cases like Carpenter v. United States (2018) (which limited warrantless cellphone location tracking) why this could be perceived poorly.

But the Constitution tries to ensure that risk doesn’t come from government retaliation against lawful expression. I would ask why you're so keen to allow it.

> forced disclosure of membership lists

Sure, that sounds bad. But also very different than a mob of masked protestors who feel entitled to anonymous protest.

Protestors should be proud to be there and shouldn't feel the need to hide their identities. Not in this country at least. For all the hysterical comparisons, this isn't Putin's Russia. They aren't just kidnapping random citizens and disappearing them for participating in a protest. On the other hand, during "peaceful protests" when people start destroying the city under cover of the protest, yeah, I do want those people to be arrested and tried.

it seems prudent to protect your identity from that collection, when in 6months time, the government might be kidnapping and disappearing citizens.

even still, not everyone is a citizen and the government seems to believe that protesting is a reason to remove a greencard. Not everyone wants to spend a month incorrectly detained

> Protestors should be proud to be there and shouldn't feel the need to hide their identities. Not in this country at least. For all the hysterical comparisons, this isn't Putin's Russia. They aren't just kidnapping random citizens and disappearing them for participating in a protest. On the other hand, during "peaceful protests" when people start destroying the city under cover of the protest, yeah, I do want those people to be arrested and tried.

We're less than a year into the administration: think it's a little bit early to be assuming that those abuses of power won't happen.

> But also very different than a mob of masked protestors who feel entitled to anonymous protest.

Well, the links above explain exactly why there is debate around whether or not protestors are entitled to anonymous protests.

> On the other hand, during "peaceful protests" when people start destroying the city under cover of the protest, yeah, I do want those people to be arrested and tried.

I agree, but I would not trade my constitutional rights for some small (or large) property damage, that happens very rarely. (The last few weekends saw hundreds of protests across the nation - how much looting or other did you see?)

Unfortunately, this country is full of people that fall prey to newsroom propaganda, become emotional, and would gladly trade away their rights. It's a shame that those decisions affect everyone else, as well.

> What part of the constitution guarantees me the right to be anonymous while I protest?

The fourth amendment: unreasonable searches and seizures. This is an unreasonable search.

Also, protests aren't civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is civil disobedience. Protests are explicitly protected by the first amendment and you can protest all day long.

> search

meh, this is a vague term so I have no opinion on whether observing who's at a protest based on the signals their phone sends out counts as a "search". Depends on the supreme court justices' random ideas in practice.

> aren't civil disobedience

> can protest all day long

If protesters aren't breaking any law, we have seen no evidence they have any reason to worry about anything being discussed here. I'm just saying that it's silly to insist on the ability to do so secretly. Masked mobs of anonymous "protestors" is a really bad thing to normalize roaming around and doing whatever they want. Even if most are just nice concerned citizens, you're creating a perfect environment for people who just want to destroy to do so with impunity.

> If protesters aren't breaking any law, we have seen no evidence they have any reason to worry about anything being discussed here.

Completely legal protests are met with unreasonable searches, seizures, and even violence all the time in the US. We saw it all the time with BLM. Yes, they need to worry about that.

Start at the Fourth Amendment. (I guess the First would be more appropriate place to start, but the Fourth is quite pertinent.)

Also,

> [...] if you disagree with me and think the government is fascist and thus can't be trusted not to throw you in prison just for saying things they don't like

this is happening:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/tourist-refused-entr...

edited for phrasing / completeness

This seems like an apples/oranges comparison.

The constitution is pretty silent afaik on whether random foreign nationals such as this tourist have any particular rights. Obviously summarily executing or imprisoning them would be a big no-no, but being asked lots of questions and thoroughly searched because they think you're a troublemaker is not uncommon. Being refused entry to a country that isn't yours and being home safe by the end of the day, is quite a few huge leaps away from being locked up in your own country for your speech.

Do I think that incident sounds like a stupid move by CBP if that is the whole story[1]? Yeah. But I disagree that it's proof we're in a fascist dictatorship.

[1] Is it also possible that the government agents didn't overhear him making some flippant comment that made him seem far more dangerous? For instance, "Yeah I can't believe I'm even coming here when that fascist Trump was elected. Wish that bullet hadn't missed." If he had said or done something to cause it to happen, you can bet he would have forgotten to mention it when he recounted his story to The Daily Star.