I whole-heartedly agree with your email, except for one detail.
Thank you for writing it.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Patty Langasek wrote:
> If you don't, and you simply
> want to bikeshed and provoke fights about dietary choices or needs, please
> start a new thread.
Actually, please do n
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:44:31AM +0200, Lunar wrote:
> Gaudenz Steinlin:
> > And taking the risk to be called an ochlocrat once again, I would also
> > argue against accomodating vegans if the proposed solution would be that
> > everyone has to eat vegan food all the time.
> Why?
Because with m
Gaudenz Steinlin:
> And taking the risk to be called an ochlocrat once again, I would also
> argue against accomodating vegans if the proposed solution would be that
> everyone has to eat vegan food all the time.
Why?
Almost all DebConf attendees could eat vegan food for the length of the
confere
If there is a no video zone and someone asks from there, they are not taped.
If they ask from anywhere else, they are taped.
If someone deviates from majority opinion and does not want their picture
taken, they should be recognizable as such and a lanyard works here.
Design for the common case wh
Holger Levsen writes:
> Hi,
>
> some replies in one mail...
>
> On Sonntag, 14. September 2014, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > I've actually often wondered why DebConf doesn't do what was routine at
>> > Usenix, LISA, etc., which was to have a mike f
Hi,
some replies in one mail...
On Sonntag, 14. September 2014, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I've actually often wondered why DebConf doesn't do what was routine at
> > Usenix, LISA, etc., which was to have a mike for questions and a camera
> > dedic
micah anderson writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Do not photograph" checkbox in
registration"):
> I might also mention that there are people who are fine with their
> picture being taken, who are at the same time *not at all ok* with
> pictures being taken of people
Great idea. The zones (in talk rooms and hacklab) should work for this as
discussed and a few extra no-photo lanyards at front desk should satisfy
the other half of it.
On 16 Sep 2014 17:52, "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" wrote:
> On 09/14/2014 12:45 PM, micah anderson wrote:
>
> > A few examples,
>
> [..
On 09/14/2014 12:45 PM, micah anderson wrote:
> A few examples,
[...good examples snipped...]
And then there are people who usually are OK with having their picture
taken, but at any given time decide that they just don't feel like it
right now.
If, for whatever reason, someone doesn't want to
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:31:07PM -0400, micah anderson wrote:
> Aigars Mahinovs writes:
> > On 12 September 2014 18:52, John Sullivan wrote:
> >> Gaudenz Steinlin writes:
> >>> But I agree that this view might be skewed be that fact that I
> >>> personally think that the talks video are very
On Sep 14, 2014 9:25 PM, "Aigars Mahinovs" wrote:
> There are really only three options: either we minimize the default
> conference experience to lowest common denominator, or we ignore
> minority preferences, or we identify people with additional
> preferences and provide them with special atte
On 14 September 2014 21:43, micah anderson wrote:
> Gaudenz Steinlin writes:
>
>> And taking the risk to be called an ochlocrat once again, I would also
>> argue against accomodating vegans if the proposed solution would be that
>> everyone has to eat vegan food all the time.
>
> If you had a che
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 02:43:51PM -0400, micah anderson wrote:
> Gaudenz Steinlin writes:
> > And taking the risk to be called an ochlocrat once again, I would also
> > argue against accomodating vegans if the proposed solution would be that
> > everyone has to eat vegan food all the time.
> I
Gaudenz Steinlin writes:
> And taking the risk to be called an ochlocrat once again, I would also
> argue against accomodating vegans if the proposed solution would be that
> everyone has to eat vegan food all the time.
If you had a checkbox that said "I need to eat meat at every meal" and a
sp
Clint Adams writes:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:23:29PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>> I might be wrong on this, but I expect those that don't mind to be
>> filmed to vastly outnumber those that oppose to it. So to me it seems
>> enough to make it clear that talk rooms are filmed and to have
Aigars Mahinovs writes:
> We are talking about a handful of people "against" several hundred
> on-site and several hundred more off-site. I am glad to set up some
> extra rules to accommodate their special wishes. Removing useful
> things from hundreds of other people is not ok.
I don't understa
Aigars Mahinovs writes:
> On 12 September 2014 18:52, John Sullivan wrote:
>> Gaudenz Steinlin writes:
>>
>>> But I agree that this view might be skewed be that fact that I
>>> personally think that the talks video are very valueable and don't mind
>>> being filmed during the talks.
>>
>> I fin
Ian Jackson writes:
> Richard Hartmann writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Do not photograph" checkbox
> in registration"):
>> That is a social problem, so technical solutions won't work anyway.
>
> This is the second time in this thread that this aph
Richard Hartmann writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Do not photograph" checkbox in
registration"):
> That is a social problem, so technical solutions won't work anyway.
This is the second time in this thread that this aphorism has turned
up. It's entirely wron
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:23:29PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> I might be wrong on this, but I expect those that don't mind to be
> filmed to vastly outnumber those that oppose to it. So to me it seems
> enough to make it clear that talk rooms are filmed and to have a space
> for those that do
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 06:54:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We did that for the Linus Q&A, and I thought that worked much better. And
> then people who don't want to be filmed will have a clearer idea of what
> part of the audience will be filmed and can avoid sitting close to the
> mike, and
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've actually often wondered why DebConf doesn't do what was routine at
> Usenix, LISA, etc., which was to have a mike for questions and a camera
> dedicated to that and have people queue to ask questions. Although I
> suspect it's just lack
Aigars Mahinovs dijo [Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:54:23AM +0300]:
> It has been mentioned before and I somewhat agree - for a non-native
> English speaker it is often easier to understand people if you see
> them speak as that give some more visual cues on what they are saying.
> This becomes even more
Avi writes:
> It is common practice that the presenter should repeat any question
> before answering it. As long as this speaking protocol is followed, I
> don't see any understanding issues arrising from only recording the
> presenter.
This is fine for presentations and questions, but multiple
On 14 September 2014 02:24, Avi wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2014 7:21 PM, "Ben Hutchings" wrote:
>> On Sat, 2014-09-13 at 15:40 -0700, Avi wrote:
>> > It is common practice that the presenter should repeat any question
>> > before answering it.
>>
>> Only if the question was not spoken into a microphone.
> Only if the question was not spoken into a microphone.
Sometimes, yes. But this is a pretty simple way to give both recording and
privacy in presentations.
> Presenters often forget to do this.
Remind them. :)
On Sep 13, 2014 7:21 PM, "Ben Hutchings" wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-09-13 at 15:40 -070
On Sat, 2014-09-13 at 15:40 -0700, Avi wrote:
> It is common practice that the presenter should repeat any question
> before answering it.
Only if the question was not spoken into a microphone.
> As long as this speaking protocol is followed, I don't see any
> understanding issues arrising from o
It is common practice that the presenter should repeat any question before
answering it. As long as this speaking protocol is followed, I don't see
any understanding issues arrising from only recording the presenter.
On Sep 13, 2014 5:54 PM, "Aigars Mahinovs" wrote:
> On 12 September 2014 18:52,
On 12 September 2014 18:52, John Sullivan wrote:
> Gaudenz Steinlin writes:
>
>> But I agree that this view might be skewed be that fact that I
>> personally think that the talks video are very valueable and don't mind
>> being filmed during the talks.
>
> I find audio and video of the primary sp
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:23:29PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>> I might be wrong on this, but I expect those that don't mind to be
>> filmed to vastly outnumber those that oppose to it. So to me it seems
>> enough to make it clear that talk rooms are filmed and to ha
On Sat, 2014-09-13 at 22:34 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If the main difficulty with a proper opt-in system is that we don't
> want to throw photo refuseniks into a ghetto (or stop them asking
> questions), we could just stop videoing the questions at all.
I don't think we should throw the baby out
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Do not photograph" checkbox in
registration"):
> Respecting people's wishes to not be on film while providing videos of the
> talks is a solved problem: we designate "do not film" areas of the
> audien
Gaudenz Steinlin writes:
> But I agree that this view might be skewed be that fact that I
> personally think that the talks video are very valueable and don't mind
> being filmed during the talks.
I find audio and video of the primary speaker and the slides very
valuable. I'm a little lost as to
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:23:29PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> I might be wrong on this, but I expect those that don't mind to be
> filmed to vastly outnumber those that oppose to it. So to me it seems
> enough to make it clear that talk rooms are filmed and to have a space
> for those that do
Gaudenz Steinlin writes:
> Clint Adams writes:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:23:33AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>> If you are seated next to someone who is asking a question, the value is in
>>> *not* having to accommodate individual requests to not be videoed, and
>>> having these requests
Clint Adams writes:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:23:33AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> If you are seated next to someone who is asking a question, the value is in
>> *not* having to accommodate individual requests to not be videoed, and
>> having these requests disrupt the utility of the videos
Clint Adams writes:
> What would be better is to have a small "film" area up near the speaker,
> and allow those who wish to be filmed show their explicit consent by
> moving into it to ask their questions on camera, and to not force anyone
> to be in that area if they do not want to be.
I've ac
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:23:33AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If you are seated next to someone who is asking a question, the value is in
> *not* having to accommodate individual requests to not be videoed, and
> having these requests disrupt the utility of the videos in capturing the
> flow of
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:11:35PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:44:24AM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > So do you think we should no longer record and stream the Debconf talks?
> I would personally be fine with this but people tell me that the
> conference video is int
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:44:24AM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> So do you think we should no longer record and stream the Debconf talks?
I would personally be fine with this but people tell me that the
conference video is integral to producing a great free operating
system.
> Or what's your s
On 11 September 2014 14:19, Holger Levsen wrote:
> if you are a speaker, you can decide, whether recorded or not.
>
> if you are an attendee and enter a recorded room, this takes precedence over
> your lanyard. be that a talk or the group photo.
>
> if you are an attendee and enter a recorded room
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 11. September 2014, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> Not in the context of the lanyards, though. If you have that lanyard,
> whatever its colour may be, and sit in an area with video-taping, one
> default _has_ to prevail over the other.
>
> And what happens if a room is crowded and o
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:14:43PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
>And anyway, the historic memory value we get from having photos from
>the conference is IMO quite high.
The photos and videos are very important to me personally, and I doubt
I'm alone in that feeling.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge,
On 11 September 2014 12:55, Richard Hartmann
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>> Tagging is a different issue. IMO nobody should tag any other person on
>> any photo. I'm well aware that with todays face recognition technology
>> this won't help much, but still I
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
>> Would signs at the entrance to talk rooms and/or "no video" areas inside
>> the rooms be enough.
>
> That would help for the audience side of things yes.
Not in the context of the lanyards, though. If you have that lanyard,
whatever its colour
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> Tagging is a different issue. IMO nobody should tag any other person on
> any photo. I'm well aware that with todays face recognition technology
> this won't help much, but still I belive there's a difference between
> having an anonymou
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 11. September 2014, Paul Wise wrote:
> I think we should give speakers the option (want no recording, want
> only be audio recorded, want recorded on video+audio or don't mind
> either way).
I agree.
> We can make that choice more obvious to attendees and
> photographers by p
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> So do you think we should no longer record and stream the Debconf talks?
> Or what's your solution to be able to continue to record and stream
> video from talks and at the same time respect your privacy?
>From my earlier mail:
I think w
Clint Adams writes:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:14:43PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> project. But I do feel strongly the "no photo" group should be opt-in
>> (and not the "photos OK" group). I don't have numbers for DC14 (and it
>
> I feel strongly the opposite. Violating my privacy should alwa
Richard Hartmann writes:
> Three corner cases I can't get out of my mind:
>
> * What about people who appear to the group photo while wearing
> no-photo lanyards? I think keeping the shot as-is, but not tagging
> them by name, would be prudent.
Tagging is a different issue. IMO nobody should tag
On 11 Sep 2014 05:52, "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" wrote:
>
> On 09/10/2014 08:16 PM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> > that would take extra days of my work for no good reason.
>
> i understand that it's extra work, but i don't understand why it's "no
> good reason" -- we're trying to respect people who are s
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:14:43PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> project. But I do feel strongly the "no photo" group should be opt-in
> (and not the "photos OK" group). I don't have numbers for DC14 (and it
I feel strongly the opposite. Violating my privacy should always
require my active consent.
Daniel Kahn Gillmor dijo [Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:52:33PM -0400]:
> On 09/10/2014 08:16 PM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> > that would take extra days of my work for no good reason.
>
> i understand that it's extra work, but i don't understand why it's "no
> good reason" -- we're trying to respect pe
On 09/10/2014 08:16 PM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> that would take extra days of my work for no good reason.
i understand that it's extra work, but i don't understand why it's "no
good reason" -- we're trying to respect people who are signalling (via
e.g. a black lanyard) that they would rather no
On 11 September 2014 02:22, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Donnerstag, 11. September 2014, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
>> This is a great idea - if we can make a no-photo lanyard be double
>> wide *and* light up when exposed to photo flash (like the pedestrian
>> safety reflectors)
>
> now I miss th
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> ok, found my words again: make these the lanyards for people who want their
> pictures taken. (and TBH, I think this years white swirly ones were quite very
> well visible - once again perfect is the enemy of good. ;-)
Agreed; perfect is the
Second times' the charm...
http://www.chapea.com/Lanyard-Reflectante/en
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Hot-sale-and-promotional-reflector-Lanyard_1104449300.html
So those exist and they should show up on all flash photographs. Of
course they will be more or less invisible to sesse with his
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 11. September 2014, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> This is a great idea - if we can make a no-photo lanyard be double
> wide *and* light up when exposed to photo flash (like the pedestrian
> safety reflectors)
now I miss the tags and fear you really think so. besides "uhm, no"
I'm
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> if we can make a no-photo lanyard be double
> wide *and* light up when exposed to photo flash (like the pedestrian
> safety reflectors)
I actually tried to find those first for exactly that reason, and
settled for neon later. I was only a
On 11 September 2014 00:56, Richard Hartmann
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Gunnar Wolf (personal)
> wrote:
>
>> I also think the photo-free zones would not be a solution.
>
> Not fully, especially considering that people need to walk around to
> get from A to B and making the hallways
Three corner cases I can't get out of my mind:
* What about people who appear to the group photo while wearing
no-photo lanyards? I think keeping the shot as-is, but not tagging
them by name, would be prudent.
* What about people who seat themselves in the normal talk room
audience, or even act a
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> You could have the happy-with-photography lanyards be bright colors, and
> hand out dark or black lanyards for the people who have not opted into
> being photographed.
The issue, to me, is that you need bright colours for people who
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> so why do have children "more rights" than other attendees? (and don't get me
> wrong, I fully support that
Both socially and legally speaking, the concept of parents/guardians
exists for the very reason that children need more protection
On 09/10/2014 05:56 PM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> PS: Asking people who do not want to be photographed to wear bright
> colours is somewhat counter-intuitive...
You could have the happy-with-photography lanyards be bright colors, and
hand out dark or black lanyards for the people who have not opte
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 11. September 2014, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> > Children should *not* be photographed without prior consent
> > from their parents.
> Just to re-iterate this point: This makes sense in all cases and no
> matter what, if a
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> Children should *not* be photographed without prior consent
> from their parents.
Just to re-iterate this point: This makes sense in all cases and no
matter what, if anything, we end up doing, this should be communicated
clearly to every at
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> (Due to the particular room configurations and camera angles in place this
> time, the "do not film" area was "somewhere outside the talk room and watch
> the talk via the stream".
Black cardboard cutouts could work in case DC15 and follo
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Rooms that are being videotaped are also to be marked, fwiw.
Valid point. It feels silly, but taping camera warnings to the doors
can't hurt. Unless there are signs at the entrance of the Youth
Hostel, already.
Richard
--
Richard
___
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Gunnar Wolf (personal) wrote:
> I also think the photo-free zones would not be a solution.
Not fully, especially considering that people need to walk around to
get from A to B and making the hallways no-photo seems like
unenforceable overkill.
Yet, it would be tr
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:25:35PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> Even a blacklist is practically impossible to realize while
> maintaining even just a good coverage of the event. Whitelisting?
> Forget about all photo coverage and just have video of just the
> slides. Anything else will be practi
On 10 September 2014 22:50, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> All proposed solution looks like a division by zero error.
There are conflicting requirements - covering Debconf (either with
photo or video) requires a lot of images of people while privacy
concerns require not to take images of people.
> So t
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 10:37 +0200, Mika Pflüger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Any solution that you come up with is going to be at the discretion
> > of the photographers to conform to, because the law is not on the
> > side of the photograph's subject where public spaces are concern
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 22:15 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> 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 che
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:08:55PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> My reading of the law is that even in a public setting people
> photographed must give some kind of consent before the photo can be
> published in any way. From photography forums I read that in public
> events this is usually hande
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 10. September 2014, Christoph Egger wrote:
> >> 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?
I dont get the part with the yelling neither, but standing up (usually) also
helps
Judit Foglszinger writes:
>> 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?
> There is a clearer video of the person
> and it makes it easier for the camera operator
> to quickly catch the speaking
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 10. September 2014, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> On 10 September 2014 11:37, Mika Pflüger wrote:
> > Note that for the next DebConf the legal situation is more complicated
> > as Germany has much more strict "rights to the own image" than most
> > other countries (see e.g.
> > http:/
On 10 September 2014 11:37, Mika Pflüger wrote:
> Note that for the next DebConf the legal situation is more complicated
> as Germany has much more strict "rights to the own image" than most
> other countries (see e.g.
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild, in German). I am
> not a
Hi,
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Any solution that you come up with is going to be at the discretion
> of the photographers to conform to, because the law is not on the
> side of the photograph's subject where public spaces are concerned.
Note that for the next DebConf the legal situation is more com
Hi Paul,
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 10:15:16PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> In practice, the attendees I'm thinking of watched talks from outside
> rooms and didn't participate in discussions. One attendee I spoke to
> had adverse consequences due to be photographed and identified in a
> photo. I don't
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:03:05AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > I'd love to hear from people like Micah who did check the box and
> > who were frustrated this year if they think such a solution would
> > work well.
> I am in the same position as Micah, especially since I've been
> raising thi
(slightly reordered, failure matched with imperfect solution)
I am in the same position as Micah, especially since I've been
raising this issue for many years, and since I generally don't want
my photos released in public space.
Differently coloured lanyards would work under three conditions:
On 10 September 2014 00:22, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> I think we do have technology to implement that. Maybe not with 100%
> hit rate, but not that far off. Give people who don't want to be
> photographed differently-coloured lanyards. It costs a bit more, since
> we need two types of lanyards a
> I'd love to hear from people like Micah who did check the box and
> who were frustrated this year if they think such a solution would
> work well.
I am in the same position as Micah, especially since I've been
raising this issue for many years, and since I generally don't want
my photos released
]] micah anderson
> 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,
> figur
> 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?
There is a clearer video of the person
and it makes it easier for the camera operator
to quickly catch the speaking person.
> When I got the
> 'pictur
Hi,
On Dienstag, 9. September 2014, Gunnar Wolf (personal) wrote:
> 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.
well, don't let perfect be t
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
qui
Paul Wise 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 solidari
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 DebC
On 09/05/2014 05:09 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I believe "we" don't upload there - the copyright holder (or someone
> else licensed to do so) does.
>
> I dislike a bunch of services, but don't dictate my fellow Debian
> friends not to use those. Instead I advocate strongly to use better
> a
Quoting John Sullivan (2014-09-05 17:38:24)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
>> Quoting John Sullivan (2014-09-05 04:26:36)
>>> Luke Faraone writes:
>>>
On 4 September 2014 13:38, martin f krafft
wrote:
> also sprach Aigars Mahinovs [2014-09-04 12:33
> -0700]:
>> On a side n
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting John Sullivan (2014-09-05 04:26:36)
>> Luke Faraone writes:
>>
>>> On 4 September 2014 13:38, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Aigars Mahinovs [2014-09-04 12:33 -0700]:
> On a side note: I am note aware of any legal or privacy problems
> occur
Quoting Holger Levsen (2014-09-05 16:32:54)
> On Freitag, 5. September 2014, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> I believe "we" don't upload there - the copyright holder (or someone
>> else licensed to do so) does.
>
> yes, but *we* invite the photographer, Aigars, to make these photos on
> *our* behalf,
Hi,
On Freitag, 5. September 2014, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I believe "we" don't upload there - the copyright holder (or someone
> else licensed to do so) does.
yes, but *we* invite the photographer, Aigars, to make these photos on *our*
behalf, so I think we have a say on the licence too. I'd
Quoting Thomas Goirand (2014-09-05 10:36:01)
> On 09/05/2014 12:21 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > There should also be documentation, that
> >
> > a.) you're the photographer, so people who dont want their photos taken
> > should
> > hide from you
> > b.) that you're automatically + immediatly up
On 09/05/2014 12:21 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> There should also be documentation, that
>
> a.) you're the photographer, so people who dont want their photos taken
> should
> hide from you
> b.) that you're automatically + immediatly uploading fotos to flickr, if I
> understood you correctly.
Quoting John Sullivan (2014-09-05 04:26:36)
> Luke Faraone writes:
>
>> On 4 September 2014 13:38, martin f krafft wrote:
>>> also sprach Aigars Mahinovs [2014-09-04 12:33 -0700]:
On a side note: I am note aware of any legal or privacy problems
occuring from uploading public CC/GPL-li
Luke Faraone writes:
> On 4 September 2014 13:38, martin f krafft wrote:
>> also sprach Aigars Mahinovs [2014-09-04 12:33 -0700]:
>>> On a side note: I am note aware of any legal or privacy problems
>>> occuring from uploading public CC/GPL-licensed photos to either
>>> Google Plus or Flickr (p
On 4 September 2014 13:38, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Aigars Mahinovs [2014-09-04 12:33 -0700]:
>> On a side note: I am note aware of any legal or privacy problems
>> occuring from uploading public CC/GPL-licensed photos to either
>> Google Plus or Flickr (paid version in both cases)
>
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
