Subject: [hackathon] Photo and video policy at Hackathons

From: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 19:42:28 +0000

On 12/5/17, 10:12 AM, "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>| afaict, we're currently discussing the best way that people present at
>| the event (all of whom we presume to be acting in good faith) can
>| clearly express their preferences in a way that other people can respect
>| those preferences.
>|
>| Surely that's not a dangerous change to make?

Discussion as I said is good, however I think we are thinking differently
on what should be discussed: I was suggesting that the principle of even
being able to ask for selective privacy should be discussed as it is a
deviation from what¹s worked at the last 100 IETF meetings and it differs
from what one can expect in regular public space.

My point was that the basic policy should be discussed before
implementation solutions are developed or tested, because even the basic
policy concept has a lot of potential consequences and requirements.

For instance - what do we do when people ignore the policy?  Do they get
excluded from future meetings?  Do we force them to delete the photos?  Do
we give people the right to demand to see the photos someone has taken and
then demand they delete them?  That then gets intrusive into the privacy
of the photographer and their device.

Please understand that I am not trying to be hostile to the principle that
people should have some control over the use of their image, but the core
principle being proposed here differs from what is today common practice
supported by the legal system that you can record without permission in
public space with specific limitations, but not blanket limitations,
around commercial use.

And when it¹s being proposed for including into the entire IETF meeting
process, then that touches upon the policy of the meeting sessions being
recorded which impacts both transparency and on remote attendees .   So
this quickly grows to touch a lot of what we do and operate on, and
deviates from what has worked for a 100 meetings.

On 12/5/17, 10:12 AM, "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>| This is not a discussion of adversarial photography -- an
>| alternate-colored badge, sticker, button, or lanyard would clearly not
>| be a solution to that case.  Right?
>|
>| This is not about abridging the freedoms of photographers.  It's about
>| giving respectful photographers more information so that they can be
>| better informed when taking pictures.  This actually makes things easier
>| for respectful photographers because they don't have to worry about
>| asking people (either before or after taking pictures) whether they're
>| ok with being photographed.

The devil is always in the details isn¹t it?   Badges can be hard to read,
especially from across a room, and what about when taking the shot from
the side or the back of a person?  Where is the line with respecting a
photographers freedom and the desires of the subjects?   Once there is a
means to notify someone of your preference does that mean they need to
respect it and what recourse does each side have?

Once you have a ³recommendation² for anything, you need to develop what
the appropriate response is when that recommendation is ignored otherwise
you have policies that some will follow and others will not with no means
of reconciling expectations of various parties because everyone isn¹t
following same recommendations.

I know the ³don¹t photo me notification² approach is used at other events
like Rights Con - how do they deal with people not respecting the request?

-glenn

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 13:26:45 -0500

> like Rights Con - how do they deal with people not respecting the request?

I reached out to the RightsCon organizers to ask them for more details.
Here's what i heard from them:

> Here's how we see it, and how we enforce it. Our code of conduct outlines
> that participants must *"Respect the privacy rights of participants that do
> not wish to be photographed or quoted"*
> <https://www.rightscon.org/code-of-conduct/>.
>
> We have a lanyard based privacy system -- people pick up red lanyards (no
> photo) or black lanyards (photo okay) at credential pickup
> <https://twitter.com/rightscon/status/846990310995623937>. It was
> resoundingly supported and people really loved the idea.
>
> For our own photographer on site, he was trained to make sure not to take
> photos of folks with red lanyards. For larger group shots where red
> lanyards are unavoidable, we literally photoshopped peoples' faces before
> sharing them publicly. We were very clear about our photo policy in opening
> ceremonies, social media, and through signage at the event. The community
> of participants in turn helped enforce the policy.
>
> I don't know the exact coordination realities of IETF hackathons but can
> say that 1) this has worked for us, 2) it was relatively easy to implement,
> 3) it is vital for us to respect the privacy of attendees that choose not
> to be photographed.

Obviously, RightsCon is not the IETF, and their policies are not IETF
policies.  However, it sounds like it was an easy mechanism, and people
generally understood it and held each other accountable for mutual
respect.

        --dkg

---

From: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:36:18 +0000

That’s interesting how Rights Con handled it by inserting it in as a MUST
into their Code of Conduct.  The equivalent would be the IETF Note Well
https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html as Brian pointed out.

While it could be argued that “it’s a simple experiment to just add this
policy on a voluntary basis”, that could be seen as possibly backdooring a
policy change into the IETF without it having been openly discussed as a
basic policy change for the iETF.

The proper way would be for a draft I-D to submitted around amending Note
Well so that it could be considered and discussed.

-glenn

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 20:29:56 +0000

If we have to go the I-D route, I'm happy to coauhtor. I think it would be
great to pilot this for 101 and can devote budget for red lanyards for the
hackathon. I see this as an important normative consideration that we can
require only paid photogs to adhere to, but it might also make sense for
recreational/etc. photogs to signal that they respect this norm.

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:36 Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> hackathon mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hackathon
>
-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [email-masked], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871