Hi Mary,
I agree with you that people are subject to routine surveillance. The primary difference here is:
1.. That doesn't come with the intrusive experience of having a camera pointed directly at you from close by, which some people find unpleasant.
2. It generally doesn't result in still pictures posted on the Internet, which some people dislike
You're certainly correct that there are some venues which require you to consent to photography, but, for the reasons you indicate, that's sort of a hostile practice. So, I do think there is real value in us making it possible for people to opt out of still photography.
I've seen a number of concerns about whether this is going to work. I think there are two questions here: First, whether it will work for us to have a "do not photograph indicator" and instruct our official photographer to respect it. I think it's pretty obvious we can do that and much of this policy is devoted to documenting what exactly that will consist of. It's certainly reasonable to as how well this will work for photography by individuals. The best I can tell you is that this is actually a pretty common kind of policy, for instance:
Strange Loop: https://www.thestrangeloop.com/policies.html
The Ada Initiative: https://adainitiative.org/2013/07/04/another-way-to-attract-women-to-conferences-photography-policies/
Mozfest: https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/2492510/20195148/2bf62570-a74a-11e6-883a-86058c76cd4b.png
The reports I have heard from people who attend these kinds of events is that the policies work relatively well at achieving the objectives I outlined above.
-Ekr
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Mary B <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'll agree with you on "home of pointless". I can see situations in which people don't want to be photographed and I personally hate to be photographed. But, it's a little ironic that this is coming up before London where the average person is caught on CCTV anywhere from 70-300 times/day. Of course, not everyone has access to that - i.e., that doesn't get posted on Facebook. In many activities in which you participate, it's very common when you sign up that you agree to the photographing etc. - my son ended up on the cover of a summer camp brochure one time because of this. And, I had my picture posted on an outdoor company's FB page almost immediately when I was in Hawaii whale watching. One could see situations where this could be problematic for someone's personal safety (e.g., a ugly and possibly dangerous child custody situation or stalker). So, I wouldn't want to minimize someone that might have a concern that falls into that category, but at the same time given the proliferation of cameras, I think it's an impossibility to even think this would work.Mary.On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:This seems to be pointless* the moment anyone steps into any public area - whether inside the venue or outside.
In many such places, you are already being photographed anyway - by companies (hotels, conference venues), governments (crime cams, traffic cams), and individuals (security cameras, anyone taking a selfie).
Joe
* admittedly, the IETF is frequently the “home of pointless”… ;-)
