On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 07:15:14AM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
> I don???t recall any open-to-the-public venue that restricts its *attendees* (1) this way, in fact, it appears that existing laws already do the converse.
AFAIK, there are all kind of better or worse photography rules for all
kind of events.
The desire of individuals wrt to photography must be well respected,
but it also needs to be weighted against the need and desire for photography
at public events.
I think the IETF needs to decide what it wants to be, a public event
or primarily a safe space.
If you are an Eric Allman talking to a Robert Morris
at somethings self-identifying as a public event after 1988,
thats a photo for the history books.
CCC for example primarily wants to maintain the illusion of being a safe
space, which was a lot more understandable in the past and is mostly a
pointless feelgood policy when you have 13000 attendees last i managed to
get a ticket (2015). Especially because any law enforcement agency can
easily take photos/video without that being recognizeable and nobody
seemed to be smoking pot openly anymore (as opposed to the 90th).
[ I thought that CCC no-photography policy was especially sad 2015, because
it was one of the last times it was run in that quite unique zoo for hackers
in their large and nice variety of self-created meeting habitats - before
they tore that zoo down. Even without any photography policy it would have
felt to me very disrespectful to take any photos of those setting though,
given how it would have been impossible to not recognize faces. ]
Cheers
Toerless
> I.e., it???s a reductio ad legis (sorry if my Latin is rusty), i.e., ???reduction to (existing) law???.
>
> Joe
>
> (1) to Mary???s point, AFAIR, photography releases at some events addresses use of those photographs by the venue, e.g., for promotional purposes. Having the ISOC assert or assure it won???t assert that permission without explicit consent is quite different.
>
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
