Martin, Let me try to restate this with the understanding that I'm talking about what is convenient and/or necessary for carrying on the work of the IETF and not trying to interpret German law. I will accept your interpretation as stated but, if that interpretation is correct, I believe the IETF should not meet there while those provisions are in effect unless at least one of the following conditions arises: (i) the IETF can reasonably require that people give permission --irrevocable for the length of time they are at the meeting -- as needed to permit the IETF to do things that are considered convenient of necessary. That is still voluntary in the sense that attending the meeting is voluntary and still revocable by leaving the meeting and not coming back-- one can just decide that, if one doesn't want to volunteer to permit one's picture to be taken, one can't attend the meeting. If you are saying that it is illegal to impose a condition that binds the two together, that is fine: unless the other condition applies, we shouldn't be meeting in Germany. I presume, by asserting that such a binding is not permitted, you are also asserting that corporate ID badges with pictures on them have disappeared from Germany or are discretionary on a per-employee basis because a corporate requirement that, in order to remain employed, one must wear such a badge wouldn't be voluntary either. (ii) The IETF concludes that it doesn't need what I think is reasonable and, in particular, that if I need to record who has his or her hands up in a WG poll, it is better for me to take the time to send people through the room asking for and writing down names than to take pictures. Note that an extra checkmark on the blue sheets or an RFID walk-by doesn't work, because part of my goal is to have everyone in attendance at the WG meeting able to see who (else) has her hand up. I have almost no preference between the two. I do care that, as WG Chair, I'm not expected to manage things in an environment in which I can ask for volunteers or commitments without being able to establish who made them. And, if the second choice above is the choice of the community, I believe I have the reasonable right to expect that I can ask for WG slots a half-hour longer than I would otherwise need and expect to get it, even if that means an extra half-day or day of meetings. john --On Wednesday, 25 April, 2012 00:17 +0200 Martin Rex <mrex@xxxxxxx> wrote: > John C Klensin wrote: >> >> I strongly encourage the >> IASA to avoid ever holding an IETF meeting in Germany again >> without first obtaining appropriate legal advice that it is >> acceptable given our existing conditions to record the names >> and identities of anyone participating in any IETF activity, > > That does _not_ require a photo. > > >> >> whether they are explicitly sign something, >> are photographed, are identified by RFID, > > Keep in mind that if it isn't _voluntary_ consent, it will be > legally void, even with a signature on it. > > >> >> have their names written down after they say something at a >> microphone or on Jabber, raise their hands (presumably in the >> expectation of being identified), or can be identified in >> some other way. > > What is wrong about simply archiving the information that > participants are providing voluntarily, such as it has been > the last 20 years? > > > In Germany, an employer is not entitled to have and use a > photo or picture of an employee without explicit, voluntary > and anytime revocable consent of that employee (with very few > and very narrow exceptions carefully scoped by the > legislator). Writing something to a different effect into the > employment contract will be legally void, because the consent > to use the picture MUST be voluntary and anytime revocable. > > >> >> Of course, an acceptable alternative to "no meetings in >> Germany or any other country with the rules you suggest >> apply" would be explicit permission on registration forms as >> a condition of attendance. Or, presumably, a Chair could >> make an announcement that anyone who continues to sit in a >> particular room is giving permission for such identification. > > Please do not confuse any necessity to identify an originator > of a contribution (which is where data protection laws would > apply) and the personal privacy rights of individuals about > photos&portraits of themselves. > > -Martin