On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> 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_Habitat_for_Humanity_site.jpg

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.