I wonder if one could get away with vandalizing cameras as protected speech. I would certainly start wearing makeup: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20003431-1.html
These cameras are put up with the intention of protecting life / liberty / property. Perfectly valid and laudable aims in a democracy.
The problem is that the uses of the systems can become subverted and spiral downwards, through lack of controls and oversight.
As an example imagine cameras and software to identify sudden violent actions in a street, flag the incident for review, follow all the involved people as they walk down different streets switching cameras intelligently.
That seems a good thing.
Bad thing: not knowing you were being monitored last night and upon review nothing violent actually happened.
Badder thing: not knowing you are being monitored as part of a skin-color recognition innovation.
Badderer things: oh lots, but all about technologies being used outside of strict, "just cause" reasons.
Since crime will always exist and criminals will always one-up law enforcement, it's in our best interests to always use the least possible countermeasures. Time will tell when we've reached 1984, society seems to drift closer and closer — albeit, ever so slowly.
> Partially obscure the nose-bridge are: The region where the nose, eyes, and forehead intersect is a key facial feature.
Wouldn't a big pair of aviators, or any sunglasses, pretty much take care of this?