Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Do not photograph" checkbox in registration
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.
To be honest, I have to recognize... I completely forgot about it. And,
yes, I had quite a bit of fun playing with my new (well, bought-used)
camera. Of course, I extend a sincere apology and offer to remove any
photos I took from you or anybody else from the DebConf annex —
Although
I know it places the burden on the people interested in being not
photographed. And I also know it's probably pointless, since the photos
might have been copied by $evilguy by now.
I sincerely thought the result from this kind of discussions in the
past
had led to "we cannot do much anyway, people, please accept this is a
public event". Please tell me, Micah, was *any previous* DebConf
different
in this regard? We might copy from that previous experience :-/
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 also think the photo-free zones would not be a solution. I don't
think
marking reservations for shy/privacy-minded people will work. It could
help a bit, but... don't think it would be enough.
Personally, I'd rather the option be opt-in, instead of opt-out.
(this line was written in the context of photos during questions in a
talk)
I still don't think this would work. It still makes it necessary for
everybody to remember who chose what. And that does not scale.
I think the way out is a visibly distinct conference badge; if the
lanyard
color is clearly different, and we are all aware that "orange lanyard
means no photos", we will more likely respect it (at least, I surely
will).
We mostly carry our badges all the time; we have to communicate to
everybody
what lanyard colors mean, but I believe that's a good visual clue for
us
people-with-camera to follow. And yes, I will probably make a
face-to-badge
link, just as I have learnt most of the names, making me not take
pictures
of you when we go to a bar in the city (and you rightfully hide your
highly-visible badge+lanyard).
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.
Well, to be honest, we have always had it (and that's a reason I joined
the
photo-making club): Some of my favorite photos of myself were taken
without my knowledge at previous DebConfs (one by Aigars, one by
Tiago).
We often use such pictures to illustrate the final report. I don't
think
we saw any departure from our usual ways — Although, yes, if this
bothers
you and others we do have the responsability to work on fixing this.
Reply to: