Re: Proposed Photography Policy

[Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 4, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

Mikael, if you think this is the goal of the policy, then you have not been following the discussion here (and who can blame you—it's been long).

That is certainly _one_ of the goals, but consider your preschool use case. It doesn't matter whether the photo is labeled; the mere fact of the face in the photo is enough, because facial recognition software will be able to use a label obtained elsewhere; the photo from the school will be about who went to school with whom, and who was seen playing with whom, not what that person's name was.  And once the photo has been taken, what is done with it is no longer in the control of the school.  Just so here.

To say that people have a choice as to whether to attend IETF is to thoroughly misunderstand the purpose of the IETF and the reason why people attend. Historically, I attend because it's my job to attend, and I have that job because I consider the work important.

We want people with diverse views to attend—it should be the case that people who don't GAF about privacy and people who seriously GAF about privacy attend, and it's actually damaging to the IETF if one of these groups is excluded.   We can clearly see the effects in the world of having only those people who are privileged not to care about privacy making decisions about how the Internet and services on the Internet are constructed and presented.