---- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@xxxxxxxx> To: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 8:03 PM > On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 4 Mar 2018, at 11:36, Adam Roach wrote: > > On 3/4/18 1:26 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > >>> For example, suppose I am on the balcony and I take a > >>> picture of the plenary audience... > >> > >> This conversation would go a lot more smoothly if participants went back > >> and read the policy we're discussing. > > > > Done so. > > > > If you read it with a tool that allows text-string searches, I advise > >> looking for the word "groups." It appears several times. > >> > > ... but not once in the section on non-professional photography. > > > > UNOFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHY > > Many IETF participants also engage in photography. We ask that those > > participants respect the above policies and avoid photographing > > individuals who have asked not to be photographed. Although we > > recognize that mistakes will be made, repeated intentional violations > > of this policy may constitute harassment and could be brought to the > > attention > > of the ombudsteam, per RFC 7776. > > > > If the proposed policy could be updated to put more guidance in this > > section, it would go a long way to making it a more useful protocol. > > Paul, thanks for pointing out the ambiguity here. It was certainly the > intention to have the same guidance here for both official and unofficial > photographers, but I see how someone could be confused., I should be able > to clean that up. I think that having the same guidance for amateurs and professionals is precisely the problem with the current wording. It is the amateurs I worry about with their ambition to plaster social media with images of others, which can then be used in the way that Christian suggests, to build up a detailed knowledge of an individual which can then be used and abused by social media companies, by criminals and so on. The risk of identity theft is small; the impact is enormous. And putting that mention of harassment in the UNOFFICIAL section I find bizarre. The IETF has done much in the past few years to promote encryption, at the expense of ready participation in the work of the IETF, in the name of privacy and yet here, where privacy really matters, it is ignored and harassment rules. This paragraph tells me that people should only be concerned about harassment which .., well bizarre. Tom Petch > -Ekr > > > > If there was agreement from the leadership that the one non-professional > > person who has caused the most damage in this area over the past two > > decades would be told to just @#$% stop before he attacks again, it would > > greatly lessen the need for the protocol. > > > > --Paul Hoffman > > > > >
