On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 11:09:05AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mar 5, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The primary issue IMHO wrt. photography is the conflict between safety and > > the need for IETF work to have a clear public, transparent core. > > There is no such conflict. You took that sentence out of context. As the latter sentences in my email outlined, the transparent core are really the email-addresses of participants as used in email discussions on IETF mailing list. The problem of in-person attendees is just to figure out how to associate bodies & faces with those email identities to make social in-person interactions most productive. > The IETF does not use individual or small group photos to establish the identities of IETF participants. I agree in the past tense. Since there is the photographer, its slightly evolving. As i said, i also don't think those pictures should be primariy identifiers in the context of the IETF. They are just tools to make social/in-person meetings more productive. For all i care, a photo on an IETF profile page could be anything to better help recognize the participant in-person, and not necessarily a mug-shot. For example, one particular long-time participant would probably best have a tie-dye t-shirt as his profile picture. Especially given how the face became non-recognizeable after a now (no so recent anymore) change in hairstyle. But the t-shirt usually is the best way to recognize that person (at least traditionally). I agree in the past tense. Since there is the photographer, its slightly evolving > If it did, I could google, e.g., "David Black IETF" and see a picture of David, whose face I can picture in my mind, and happen to know is associated with that name. But I don't get a picture of him. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=David+Black+IETF I do see a photo. Did you check your google preferences, unclick the "i do not want to see humans" check button ? > David is a pretty important IETF participant (in my mind at least). I don't know that he has a particular allergy to having his photo taken. If the IETF were actually using peoples' pictures in the way that you are claiming here, I would have found his photo with a Google search. +1 on Davids contributions, but you would have more likely fond a good example looking for an IETF privacy warrior. I would classify David more as a CC warror ;-) Note too, that you will find a lot of older IETF participants without photos because their profile creation and active leadership roles predate the time of the IETF photographer. But i would very much like to encourage all those ITEF old timers that still come to the IETF to also have their photo taken. > So if you have some reason for opposing this policy, whatever that reason may be, this is not that reason. If it were, you would have been demanding David's picture years ago. Not sure which opposition to the photo policy you're referring to, i made a couple of points, but none of them directly related to the use of profile photos. I explained the relationship between my ask for profile photos and the photo policy in another email: If we now start to take sensibilities against photos into account with actual IETF work spent on tendering to that, can we also please use the same effort in encouraging to use photos in support of those that like myself are face recognition challenged or that otherwise use those photos to improve their IETF works social interactions. Aka: Like you also explained about yourself, i did not feel that my problems where important enough to justify more work by the IETF, but when i see the sensibilities leading to the photo policies do permit for more IETF work, i did re-evalute the relative benefits, and brought up the point (and opened the trac case in result of our thread). Also, the fact tht the photographer had started to put photos onto WG-chair/leadership peoples pages for a while now was IMHO the necessary first step, else my request would have just hopelessly run against privacy warrior windmills. > (BTW, I mention David because his picture doesn't show up in a Google search???plenty of IETF participants' pictures do show up. I get plenty of hits for "David Black IETF" and they are referring to the right David Black???I just don't get a picture.) Maybe google blacklists you ? ;-) > Also, as a former IESG member, I can remember us specifically discussing the question of how we know for sure who actually participated on a document. The answer is that in theory this is an unsolved problem. In practice, it hasn't been an issue???when we've needed to know whether a particular person participated, it's been possible to do so. But we have IETF participants who really don't identify themselves with a legal name. If we needed to establish their identity, we'd have to rely on courts to help us do so, and we might fail. This is just how things are. When we had this discussion, one of the questions that came up was "should we do something to make this more reliable?" There was no appetite for it. Right. As i said: Core IETF transparency is email-addresses. If we had an easy way to identify email addresses with bodies, the bodies can all run around with paper bags over their heads in in-person meetings. Unless we make that happen (i still like RFID-tags in front of mikes on the question line ;-), i suggest to strongly consider weighting your desire for likeness privacy with your desires to effectively communicate in-person with strangers you only know from email and do get a profile picture. That too would reduce the need for others to take your photo to remember who you are. And as also said: Those pictures could equally be made limited to community-access-only like in linkedin, if we wanted to invest the effort into data-tracker. So far, i have not seen anyone support that level of complexity though. Cheers Toerless -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx
