Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually and without having to protect your face/identity. It was enshrined in the First Amendment as a fundamental check on the federal government in order to recognize the natural right of a self-governing people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.

> Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually

Then you are going to be identified and your conversations monitored. This is precisely the outcome the article is complaining about. I find that expectation absurd.

> of a self-governing people

This describes the majority not the individual.

> and petition the government

There is no expectation or statement that your anonymity will be protected. The entire idea of a "petition" immediately defies this.

> to prevent the enforcement of law.

How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow.