On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe
<jayen466(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
To me the wording of the board resolution is clear as is stands. Erik has
further clarified it. However, present practice in Commons does not follow
it. So if these three words help make the intended meaning clearer, then
they will help to bring Commons practice in line with the intent of the
board resolution. That is all for the good, is it not?
No. In my view no version of the board resolution that remains such a
blunt instrument that it requires the deletion of all normal portraits
taken in a private place, vastly exceeding the standards of sites like
Flickr, Facebook, Google Plus, etc. is worth preserving.
It does not require deletion at all. It requires an affirmation of consent.
Commons, on the other hand, right now does not even delete if that
affirmation is explicitly denied.
The resolution as worded requires that any photo of a
person in a private
place, or with an expectation of privacy, carry a declaration of consent.
It does not specify consent to what, and there is no broadly agreed model
of what that consent form might look like. So images like this one would
have to be deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habi…
In my view that is not acceptable, and if we're going to write a proposed
replacement/refinement/update, the most important thing to do is to address
that point.
Pete, that photograph is from The Official White House Photostream. This
rather implies that the subjects or their representatives waived their
reasonable expectation of privacy.
The cucumber lady, however, DID NOT, and nobody seems to care. I find that
appallingly callous.