Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Do not photograph" checkbox in registration
Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
>
>> I would like to ask to remove the "Do not photograph me" checkbox in
>> Debconf registration form as we do not really have a technology to
>> implement that.
>
> As someone who checked that option (mainly in solidarity with privacy
> conscious DebConf attendees I've met over the years), I agree it is
> quite pointless.
I'll raise my hand and say that I was surprised to find this Debconf
that my checking that box was rendered pointless by people taking
photos. I did not check it for a pointless reason and was surprised a
number of times during this Debconf how this was so easily disregarded
when in the past there was at least a deliberate effort to respect
people's wishes, even if it was not 100% effective.
While it may be true that we do not "have a technology to implement
that", I think the problem may be that we are trying to find
technological solutions to social problems, that we are letting the
technology dictate the viability of implementing this and finally,
figuring this out before Debconf would have been prudent.
>> As an alternative I propose setting up guidelines on which zones in
>> the conference will be "photo-free" so that people that do not want to
>> be in pictures can avoid them. For example, hacklabs can be photo free
>> (we just need a few shots of people working in them for the whole
>> conference) and there is no reason to explicitly photograph back rows
>> of auditoriums, also for cafeteria we only need a couple photos and
>> the rest of the time that can be photo free as well.
>
> I have often thought photography-acceptable zones (aka a whitelist of
> photographable locations) would be the right way to go for DebConf.
>
> The photo-free zones you mention here seem appropriate.
I think photo-free zones are not the right approach, not going to work,
and kind of annoying for everyone involved (organizers, photographers,
participants, and any easily startled moose who happens to charge
through a wall into a flashbulb firing photo zone, resulting in multiple
stab wounds from antlers disrespectfully used on unsuspecting bigots in
the process of violating the code of conduct).
> I think we should have photo-free zones where people can still ask
> questions during talks. Part of that might just be only photographing
> people who stand while asking questions, but probably also the rear of
> talk rooms.
Personally, I'd rather the option be opt-in, instead of opt-out.
I didn't understand the point of the yelling at people to stand-up when
they had the microphone. Was this to get a clearer video of the person?
Due to my parent's obsession with milk when I was younger, I suffer from
a larger than average abundance of height. Due to the gravitational pull
of the earth, and the altitude and speed at which I must climb to stand,
I am unable to replenish my brain with blood and oxygen fast enough to
adjust my cabin pressure during the adjustment to cruising altitude, so
I frequently feel like I will pass out whenever I stand. When I got the
'picture' that I was going to be lynched if I didn't stand when talking,
coupled with the realization that I was going to be filmed when doing so
(thus revealing my embarrassing milk mustache), I hastened to stifle my
desire to comment and instead opted for maintaining a cruising altitude
that was below radar.
>> At any point before, during or after a photo is taken, any person in
>> the photo can ask for the photo to be removed or their identity
>> concealed.
>
> Given the DebConf Code of Conduct, having that option seems very much necessary.
I know that a number of photos were taken this time around without the
subjects involved being at all aware that they were part of a photo, so
they would have no clue that they need to ask to be removed/concealed.
>> Having a list of names of people not to be photographed simply can
>> not work
I don't disagree, and I'm sorry I don't have any constructive
suggestions for alternative things that would work.
I didn't realize that there was going to be rapid fire, wedding-style
photography resulting in so many pictures that it is impossible to deal
with people's requests for privacy. Had I known that, maybe I would have
reviewed the discussions that we had before about this, the different
ways we and others have tried to implement this in the past, and
evaluated their varying degrees of success to determine if there was
something we could do (I seem to recall obviously different badges being
one solution that had a marginally better success than completely
ignoring the checkbox).
Alas, it seems as if the entire discussions around this subject that we
previously spent too much time on in the past[0], has lapsed into some
kind of ineffable blurry malaise. While I appreciate the attempt to
re-open this discussion, and the manner by which is was approached, not
to mention the considerable challenge that this provides for people who
are cameraing around and I find it fascinating to see that many people
have changed their opinions about this over time, I however really don't
want to re-hash the discussion around this.
So if you want an opinion of someone who checked the box: I dont want
the checkbox removed, and I don't feel like it is the responsibility of
the people who do not want their pictures taken to figure out how to
implement this.
micah
0. which, by the way, resulted in the checkbox being important enough
for someone to actually spend the time to hack on Penta to add it (do
not underestimate the inertia required to overcome this obstacle)
Reply to: