On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:20:18PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mar 5, 2018, at 12:05 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Can we at least agree that physical harrassment/intimidation is a different > > topic and stop talking abot pushing cameras into peoples faces as something > > that justifies or is core to a photo policy ? > > Toerless, why would we agree to this? What am i agreeing with ? Harrassment/Intimidation ? Can you point me to the specific part of a sentence that makes you think i agree with harrassment/intimidation ? > I would say that the most important goal of this policy is to make it possible for people who do not want cameras shoved in their faces to be able to signal to those who might otherwise be tempted to do so that such behavior is unwelcome. I think there are a bunch of things to consider here. First of all, others on the list have noted before me that actions such as shoving cameras into your face repeatedly constitutes intimidation/harrassment whether or not we have a photo policy and the suggested to deal with such incidents through our established policies to deal with any type of intimidation/harrassment. I have not seen any respond that was refuting this approach, so unless i see an argument against that i don't understand why we do not choose that path. Secondly, it is not clear to me if any policy we define in the IETF would allow to raise certain actions to the legal level of intimidation/harrassment if those would NOT be considered to be intimidation/harrassment in the absence of such a policy. I doubt it, but i am not a lawyer. Would IMHO be real important to figure this out. If whatever we define in our policies can not change what a court of law would consider to be harrassment/intimidation, then the photo policy is as i claim pretty orthogonal to intimidation/harrassment, but would mostly be about other legal things like privacy rights etc. If i am incorrect on this assumption, and by putting specific prohibitions into the photo policy would raise them to become intimidation/harrassment, then i am all for working that out explicitly. So, with my current (maybe wrong) understanding, the example of "shove camera into my face" would probably best be put into IETFs anti-harrassment policy https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-anti-harassment-policy/?primary_topic=7&; That text core sentence is somewhat focussed on harrassment based on being part of some minority/oppressed group, which i think is too narrow. I think even old white bearded evangelical men would be harrased by a camera shoved into their face. The example text at the end of Erics proposed photo policy (may be harrassment) is probably the most what the photo policy could say. POinting from photo policy to anti-harrassment policy would be good. Just to summarize in in case my english is still not correct: I do not support intimidation/harrassment. Shoving camera into face repeatedly is intimidation/harrassment imho. I think we need to deal with it effectively even if we wouldn't want to have any photo policy otherwise. > The fact that we are seeing controversy about whether taking pictures of others is a right demonstrates that the policy is necessary: quite clearly, whether or not this is perceived as harassment varies according to different participants in this discussion. Sure. The photo policy should capture all those cases we want to prohibit BEYOND recognized harrassment/intimidation. Unless there really is a way for our photo policy to redefine what constitutes intimidation/harrassment. But lately the thread seem to have gone down the direction as if the policy is almost completely about protection against harrassment/intimidation, and and as stated above, i do not understand how the photo policy could make a difference. > The phrase "shoving cameras in peoples' faces" is somewhat problematic in that you might not actually perceive this behavior as "shoving a camera" in your face if it was done to you. When it is done, it's not like the lens is two inches from your nose. It might well be five feet from your nose. It might also be a telephoto lens a few yards away. Long lenses produce better portraits, after all. Right. Thats what i tried to bring up by mentioning telephoto lens in before. I am not sure if a telephoto shot would be considered harrassment/intimidation legally. Lets assume it woulld not be considered to be that - than that's a good example of waht we should focus on in our photo policy. > The point is that something is happening which some participants, for good reason, find so bothersome that the lack of a policy forbidding it is a significant part of their calculus in deciding to come. Other participants, e.g. you, don't seem to even be able to understand this as a problem. That is why the policy is needed. It is literally because you don't see it as a problem that it needs to be stated as a policy. Sure. But good intentions do not result in good policies. I am just trying to figure out what we cold do as actually good policy and ideally also actually enforcable policy (non-pointless policy). That's why i was saying it would help a lot separating out harrassment/intimidation from non-harrassment/intimidation. > > If all IETF participants just naturally understood that they should be considerate when taking pictures of other participants, we wouldn't need a policy. Yeah. Not even that is so simple as it seems. From my understand the chaanging ways how pictures are not kep private but start to pop up in all type of contexts on the Internet is also a big consideration in participants opinions about photography. Cheers Toerless
