On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Hi folks,
The IESG has heard some concerns from participants that they would like
not to be photographed. In response to those concerns, we have developed
the attached policy which we intend to put in place going forward.
I had some thoughts about this when I discovered there is a "no
photography" policy at my sons preschool. Not that it is properly enforced
(annoyingly, why have rules you do not enforce?), but anyway.
I would imagine the problem is not the actual photography, but the fact
that these pictures might end up on the Internet for "everybody" to see.
For schools, there is the problem of protected identities etc. 20+ years
ago pictures ended up in peoples albums at home for "nobody" to see, but
now they might end up on public photo albums, being indexed by search
engines. Having kids at school is not voluntary, so this kind of policy
makes sense there. Attending an IETF meeting *is* voluntary (and there is
less expectation of privacy), so I think we should strike a different
balance than at a school (which the proposed policy seems to do).
The proposed policy seems to strike a pretty good balance between the
interests of different people, but I'd like the wording to be clear that
the ask is to not publish pictures of people who have the opt-out sticker
on their badge. Not that photos can't be taken, but that the problem is
the public publishing, not the photography itself. If photography is done
in such a way that it's harassment, then let's use existing text for
harassment instead of creating new rules for photography.
I want to avoid situations where someone with the "no-photography-sticker"
can feel it's ok for them to run across the room, screaming at someone
taking a photograph that they need to stop (and delete pictures) or the
case will be brought to the ombudsman.
So I am cautiously supportive of the general direction of this proposed
policy, but I'd like to question if we actually need a separate policy or
if we can just add a little bit of text to existing policy and use the
existing harassment policy to handle the really bad case?
So to sum up:
1. Sticker means person would not like to be included in widely available
photographs and would prefer not to be photographed at all.
2. Repeated or obvious ignoring of these wishes might be harassment.
The current proposal says basically this (apart from the publishing part),
but can we cut down the text even more?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@xxxxxxxxx
