Ted,
Thanks for your note.
I agree that there is some balancing that needs to happen here, and the policy
tries to do that.
For what it's worth, the policy as proposed does not ask that people avoid taking
photos of anything other than individuals or small groups, regardless of the indicators
people are displaying.
With regard to the example you give of someone being incidentally in the frame,
that clearly would not be a subject of sanctions because the policy talks
about "repeated intentional violations", of which this is neither.
The question of someone who is in the foreground is more interesting. Currently,
our norm is that it's fine to take photos of anyone, but that maybe if you get too
close then it's objectionable. The purpose of this part of the policy is merely to
(a) establish the norm that you shouldn't take photos of people who don't want
you to.
(b) create an easy way to signal that you don't want to be photographed.
(c) make clear that it's objectionable behavior to photograph people in violation
of this norm.
-Ekr
On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
It seems to me that one of the reasons why the conversations have been
going 'round and 'round is there is a balancing of rights going on
here. On the one hand, you the question whether the IETF meeting is
fundamentally public space or not (for which some have claimed the
answer is "yes" due to desire for transparancy in the standards
setting processing).
On the other hand, there is a disagreement on whether the right of
taking photographs in a public space outweighs the right of someone
who doesn't want to be photographed, such that either the presumption
on whether the right of taking photographs has to be justified (for
example, by those who want to record some or all of the slides of the
presentation) with the default presumption being no photographs are
allowed, ever. Or is it the case that "right not to be photographed"
is one that has to be justified as outweighing the rights of those who
might want to take photographs. (For example, if a small of group of
people are taking photographs of one another, and the back or side of
one person's head has been captured because they happened to be
walking in the background when the photograph was being shot --- is
this a case of harassment for which sanctions must be applied to the
the person taking the photograph.)
This is a complex question, since there lots of ways photographs can
be taken. For example, suppose I am on the balcony and I take a
picture of the plenary audience --- am I obliged to first check each
badge to see whether or not every person in the field of view of the
camera has the right colored indicating permission to take a picture.
Or is this somethign that only applies when they are in the
foreground, and I am "in their face" trying to take a photograph?
(And I'd argue that in that case, if it is really a case of
harassment, the existing harassment code is probably sufficient.)
This example is also a case where the hidden assumptions of the people
participating in the debate. Suppose I just want to take a picture of
the plenary audience because I want to document roughly how many
people there are there. ("This was the largest audience to witness a
IETF plenary, period." -- Sean Spicer) Do I have to justify why I need
to take a picture before we have this discussion? Or becuase
notwithstanding this is public space, some abstract "right not be
photographed" is so strong, so absolute, that it overcomes the
presumption of general rules around taking photographs in public
spaces? And if so, how does the public good to take a picture of a
slide weigh against the abstract harm of the picture being taken of
the back of someone's head whose badge says, "do not photograph"?
- Ted
