As long as the privacy implications are solved, and reasonable. I don't see any reason why local communities can't use this to prevent crime by excluding undesirable individuals from gaining access.
Whitelisting would also be more difficult to maintain, but is already done in a lot of gated complexes I've seen. Where the individual phones ahead, and get's given a ticket that has a day pass or something.
Ultimately, I believe this will get a lot of backlash as it will make a lot of people uncomfortable as to the implications.
That's not what I said.
>"does this also include smiling at white women"
If people choose to be racist and prevent people from going onto their private property, that's their business as long as they're not physically hurting anyone.
And your housing estate is not private property in the same sense your house is - the public highway is the "public highway".
I was more referring to the part about "driving people out of town" if they happen to have some minor criminal record (due to a driving offence as you suggest). That's a gross misinterpretation of what I even vaguely suggested. Private people controlling access to their private property isn't the same as "driving" someone out of "town". At least not unless the entire town is owned privately, or most/all of the individual owners in the town decide collectively to "not allow" this individual. But if you're at that level, then they might as well be passing local laws that will affect said individual anyways.
>"And your housing estate is not private property in the same sense your house is"
I don't live in the US, so please take that phrase with a little bit of interpretation. Where I live, there are very specific laws governing what they call "sectional titles". It's owned cooperatively as far as I'm aware by all the owners of the individual stands. And it is in no way "public" property in that the public has a right to access it.
You do know that the USA has had issues in the past with redlining and you said any criminal record.
You do know that in the USA in some areas they use driving offenses to disenfranchise Black and other ethnic Voters.
In many jurisdictions, most moving violations are civil offenses, not criminal offenses; they have only fines and administrative penalties (not imprisonment or loss of protected liberty) as punishment and have only the civil "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof rather than the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
But this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and in some they are minor crimes rather than civil violations.
There are plenty of good people who get labeled criminals and plenty of people would really should have a criminal record but avoided it. Don't make the mistake of aligning morals/ethics with the law. What's legal often isn't morally sound, what's illegal doesn't make sense half the time until you follow the money.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so I don't align my morals/ethics with the law. All I'm implying is that being a convicted criminal, to some extent, is an undesirable property of individuals you want near your safe area.
>"There are plenty of good people who get labeled criminals and plenty of people would really should have a criminal record but avoided it."
You have to assume the process by which they were convicted was reasonable for the suggested idea. If that's not the case then of course you shouldn't give too-much weight to being convicted. Again, it's up to the individuals how they wish to restrict access to their private property. Some will take this as a good signal for exclusion, others (like you, perhaps) will not.