DIY Anonymity on the Internet

I have seen some commentators suggest that Great Britain is among the "most surveilled" of all societies (e.g., security cameras quite frequently used).  I wonder whether we create a "new normal" in a society with pervasive surveillance.  Might political speech / action (e.g., demonstrations) be suppressed if there was a danger that every move and every word could be recorded and traced to you?  At some point, even without State action to suppress non-conformist behavior and speech, a form of self-censorship might develop.  And, in that environment, might it become a form of iconoclastic resistance to attempt to avoid all surveillance, no matter whether for good or ill purposes?  Sort of like going Vegan, or moving to Walden pond. 

Interesting that the fashion show you discuss took place in London. When rioting broke out in 2011 in London (I was there on vacation) it was amazing to see the impact of so many cameras.  By day 2 of the riots the papers were publishing photos of rioters (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024120/London-riots-2011-suspects-Photos-released-know-looters.html) and the police opened up hotlines for people to report who the rioters were.  Family members turned in their own.  People even turned themselves in - hoping for some leniency.

Online and offline security is no easy topic - but I don't believe that tools/clothing like this has too many honest applications.

One issue that seems to motivate this new technology: much of surveillance (and this is probably a rapidly increasing trend) is unknown to the individual.  Think of the ability to "track" movements and searches across web-sites; and the near-ubiquitous security and traffic cameras.  It is not so much the express screening techniques (at the airport, for example), but the surveillance you cannot see, that may be of concern.  Keep in mind, too, that with increasing use of drone technology (small, quiet, nearly undetectable), there may be an "eye in the sky" everywhere you go.  Couple that with things like facial recognition software, and you have the makings of some serious privacy concerns. 

@scbennett...I think such anti-surveillance appreal or clothings certainly have their advantages but the point is...who all are the ones whose privacy is being intruded by certain agencies. Infact a common citizen is not all the time surveilled with infra imaginers of electromagnetic emissions. If some individuals were targetted on that account than certainly there would have been a reason to it. My concern is a little more that that, anti-surveillance clothings might be used by some nefarious elements to achieve their ulterior motives. They should not be made available in commonplace market. They have got to be used by specialized people for specialized operations. 

"Reasonable suspicion," as a basis for police intervention (stop and question, stop and frisk, or a warrant for search or arrest) is a fact-specific concept.  Taking steps to avoid detection (much like use of aliases and code words) might be one indicator of a basis for suspicion.  There is a somewhat famous case in New York, where the question was whether a suspect running away from a police officer was suspicious.  The judge initially held that running away from the police, in some neighborhoods, is normal.  So, the question with anti-surveillance devices / software might become: is it "normal" to use such things to hide activity and identity?  Or, does it tend to indicate some form of unlawful activity?  The existence of physical devices in one's home or car might also be a basis for suspicion.  There are cases involving suspects with "burglary tools" (e.g., crowbars) in their possession. 

Do you mean, Steven, if you were found to be using one of these devices if you or your property was physically searched? Or are you suggesting that this type of device would ever be tracked, like guns? I'm guessing the former. 

One interesting point: the use of surveillance-avoiding technologies, in theory, might be used by law enforcement as an indicator of evasion of inquiry.  Ironically, that might mean that those who use such techniques become subject to more scrutiny. 

I agree! Locally, they actually passed a "baggy pants" rule, outlawing this style of clothing a few towns over from me. The council voted not to enact it though because they figured they'd be in court and the cops had no idea how they'd enforce it! It would be challenging to know whether one of these scarves was "anti-drone" or just someone bundled up against a northeastern snowstorm!

The first thing I thought of when reading this are the potential impacts that this would have on our digital life. Yes, I do believe that these technologies will become enormously popluar. But the downside is that we can't predict how certain individuals will use them for nefarious purposes.