> On 2 Mar 2018, at 2:09 pm, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The expectation of privacy is gone (for non commercial uses). Got commercial uses, the issue is compensation (or giving up that right) not private per se afaict. What does that mean? Are you saying that the IETF *can't* apply a photography policy in any venue it hires, worldwide? There are many places in the world where an expectation of privacy -- even for non commercial uses -- is entirely reasonable, and supported by law, depending upon the context. Even in the US, a private venue -- which by definition we are, because we hire the space -- can impose rules. But I'd urge folks not to look at this in a legalistic way. I see the proposed policy as creating and making explicit a norm -- one that's designed to assure that we take into account the preferences of all participants, and one that's designed to make people comfortable, so as to benefit the work. Especially for international organisations, such norms are important. > I see no reason why an ietf meeting should try to be more private that would any other venue that invites public participation. As patiently explained many times, it affects people's participation, and therefore affects the work. Even if it doesn't affect you personally, it doesn't follow that it isn't important. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
