RE: Opt in, not opt out: Proposed Photography Policy

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ted,

 

Given that wearing badges is mandatory, and that wearing badges without lanyards is hard (but not impossible), what you have described is effectively an opt out policy - you have to choose to have a non-photo lanyard and display that fact. It may afford better protection than nothing, but it still requires a person to make a public and visible statement that they are not willing to be photographed.

 

Adrian

 

From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 02 March 2018 19:22
To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Opt in, not opt out: Proposed Photography Policy

 

On Mar 2, 2018, at 2:13 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

An opt out policy puts the onus on people to know the policy exists, makes them responsible for wearing their badge right-side out at all times, means the photographer can always claim not to have been able to see the badge, and so forth. Worse, it stigmatises the person who does not want to be photographed by making them where a token of that fact (the reverse is easily masked by "Oh, I forgot to opt in."

 

Actually, the policy offered by the Ada Initiative would work well for this: they use different-colored lanyards, so if you are wearing an IETF badge, you can pick the lanyard that reflects your preference.   It would be difficult to not know what the policy is, but yes, one could in principle say "no lanyard, no photos."

 

The link to the article, for your convenience, is copied here from Adam's message:

 

https://adainitiative.org/2013/07/04/another-way-to-attract-women-to-conferences-photography-policies/