press interest

[Deviant Ollam]

So, someone representing PBS has contacted me about the DEFCON Shoot and their interest in speaking with some people there since they want to focus their piece on hackers and our interest in constitutional rights.

While i am not wild about media being present at an event where many of us take the "i don't want to be on camera" policy even more strongly than at DEFCON itself, part of me respects the fact that these folk are behaving exactly as we so often ask the press to behave... they are up-front about who they are and they are asking if there is any way they can do their thing in a manner that doesn't disturb us.

My thoughts on the matter would be that i could set up an additional table on the far right side of the shooting lanes. This would be more or less a "free" lane (technically pair of lanes) for anyone at the Shoot to use, with the understanding that they may appear on film if they are standing there. The reporters could roll B-Roll there if they wanted, then conduct interviews in the background somewhere during times that are quiet enough.

But those are simply my thoughts. I'd like to hear what you all want, since i have always wanted this to be your event with me simply helping to wrangle the logistics.

From their email to me..

Hollywood films, best-selling novels, and hit TV series are packed with hackers. But these caricatures don’t engage the moral complexities of the electronic frontier. This is a frontier struggle where the fight is as much about the future of our democracy as it is the immediate blows at hand. What are the legal, material, and moral issues that hackers raise for our society, and how should we respond?...

I have very little experience with firearms myself, although I did shoot a pistol for the first time last year...

I'd love to be able to come to your shoot with my Director of Photography, Paul Sanderson, and do some filming. We would of course be happy to abstain from filming anyone at the event who is not comfortable appearing on camera. Would you be open to our participating in this way

the person who contacted me is...

Rebecca Wexler
Fellow at the Yale Law School Information Society Project. She holds an M.Phil in history of science from Cambridge University (Gates-Cambridge Fellow) and a B.A. from Harvard College (summa cum laude). She has worked with filmmakers Richard Leacock, Alex Gibney, Ross McElwee, Robb Moss, Helen Whitney, and Michael Epstein on documentaries distributed by PBS/American Experience, PBS/WETA,HBO, VH1, and Verve. She has produced and directed documentaries for the Yale Art Gallery, La Maison Européenne de la Photographie, and the Long Wharf Theatre. She currently teaches a Yale Law School practicum on visual advocacy and the intersection of law and film.

her executive producer at PBS for this segment would be...

Ofra Bikel is one of America's leading documentary filmmakers. She has produced 25 programs for Frontline, and collectively these films have received broadcast journalism's most prestigious honors, including the duPont-Columbia Award, the Robert F. Kennedy Award, the Sidney Hillman Foundation Award, the NACDL Champion Of Justice Award, Grand Prize and Best of Category accolades at the Banff International Television Festival, and six national Emmys. In 2007, Bikel received the John Chancellor Award for Excellence in Journalism, honoring her 30 years of outstanding journalism and filmmaking.

[TheCotMan]

Re: press interest

News agencies have a long history of misinforming people being interviewed by telling them one reason for an interview, when the reality is they plan to use the footage for another story, claim or message.

Don't be surprised if the footage they shoots ends up as part of a story unrelated to what they claim this story will be about.

If the press will be at the shoot, there is an even stronger reason for people that do not want to be on film to somehow express this visually, so that when this crew decides to pan the crowd of people on the line, in each lane, that those that do not want to be included are not included. This may be enough for you to consider re-ordering numbers on lanes such that people that do not want to be on film are at one end or the other, and there is a clearly marked line to show where NOT to film as suggested by astcell in a post to another thread. (It is much easier to respect people's wishes when it is possible to identify those that do not want to be captured on film, visually, before you turn to film where they might be.)

Will their crew be willing to be videoed and answer questions on video for publication online?

[FirmWarez]

Re: press interest

News agencies have a long history of misinforming people being interviewed by telling them one reason for an interview...

Will their crew be willing to be videoed and answer questions on video for publication online?

Great stuff Cot, particularly the fight fire with fire question at the end there.

I've got tons of mixed feelings on this.

Frankly, I do not have a problem with being photographed, videoed, posted, youtubed. Happens all the time at the other shoots I go to. But those are "among friends"; yes there are pix of me out there with all sorts of NFA goodies for the world to see if they enter the right search terms. I don't mind my shooting buddies taking and posting pix/vids of me; I don't care if the world sees me, because in that instance I'm just another guy with an automatic rifle. Gazillions of pictures of that, to quote John Whoever "So what, big deal?"

I want to keep an open mind, and that Bourdain bloke shows that even the most whiny New Yorker self proclaimed leftist likes shooting an M-60. That said, I lay the odds of someone from Yale who "is a joint-concentrator in Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality " and has professional interests and experience in documentaries exposing how evil the US is, how awful the slaughter in Rwanda was, and how wonderful art is (all valid points at times) is going to show a bunch of armed guys with black t-shirts in a good light as pretty slim. (Where's an editor when you need one? That sentence sucks.)

I hate to stereotype -- it's irrational. Like many here I live in the engineering world, where, as with science, decisions should be made based in fact, and there is no fact that says this is ill intended. On the other hand us "hackers" share a love of security, and best security practices dictate that unattended baggage, guys in hoodies, and strangers bumming cigarettes are threats until proven otherwise.

Best case outcome: this person really does want to discuss our love of constitutional (and other) rights. She meets some cool, intelligent, articulate folks, maybe even shoots some guns, and comes away with an understand that we are (mostly) smart guys and gals with a passion for living life and doing, who believe in freedom, and want all people to have access to the fruits of said freedom, reinforced with the strength of technology.

Worst case outcome: we already know that one.

Deviant, any chance of actually meeting with this person before hand?

[seeess]

Re: press interest

Since it doesn't seem like we would get a whole lot out of it, or rather it could go quite bad for our "image", and they certainly would get something out of it. Have you considered taking the "scumbag approach" and ask for something (ammo, money, etc)?

</scheming>

They seem pretty upfront about it, if they are telling the truth. IANAL but doesn't the press have a copyright exemption from filming people in public areas where they have no expectation of privacy? Meaning, I'm wondering if they could legally do this anyway if we tell them no, so why not allow it? (if that is the case)

[RCon]

Re: press interest

doesn't the press have a copyright exemption from filming people in public areas where they have no expectation of privacy? Meaning, I'm wondering if they could legally do this anyway if we tell them no, so why not allow it? (if that is the case)

^This.

The shoot happens in a public area. That means they can pretty much just come and film us anyway with very little to nothing we could do about it. The best move here might be to “play ball” with the media, and grant them permission with the reasonable stipulations presented so far in this thread. Else they just might get pissed show up anyway, and film a Hacker Terrorist Training Camp piece. Which to be honest could happen anyway.

But lets just face it even if they blur the faces it'll look that much worse to the public at large.

Just my two cents ,
-rCON

[pukingmonkey]

Re: press interest

The shoot happens in a public area.

If we have RSOs & security to keep people safe, like you cannot be in someones lane without permission some restrictions can be enforced, but If they are on a public road with long lenses...

Anyway once you grant permission on a release form, you cannot get it back. Think about some of those fools in "Borat."

And this was in the newspaper today, about employers doing social media background checks and 4 things always get reported -- 1) racist remarks, 2) sexually explicit photos or videos, 3) flagrant displays of weapons or 4) illegal activity

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...762727188.html

So I'd be opting out. No name and dark glasses the entire time.

[renderman]

Re: press interest

Touchy issue. Glad to see discussion though.

Dev: I would ask that you get her to tell you about the larger picture shes painting and what over things she plans to research/film/interview to get a sense of what she is planning. Obviously no one will admit they are doing a 'hit piece' but depending on her answers, you may get a better sense if she's actually on the level or filming b-roll for a 'terrorist hacker training camp' thing.

I would point out that it would behoove them to behave to whatever rules we set out, mostly for safety (dont go downrange to film the crowd, etc). I would spend some time ahead of it going over the rules (including on camera) and make safety almost obnoxious in any filming. It's hard to spin the 'evil terrorist' thing when you've always got a guy in the shot with a shirt that says 'Range Safety Officer'. Kinda takes the malevolence out of it.

I agree that if you have any concerns, let them be known and as mentioned in another thread, dont be afraid to step up and let your concern be known. Personally I keep a minimal social media profile for just such a reason, but also I would'nt want to work in a place that would not hire me based on going to a legal, very safe event.

On a personal note, it would be interesting to have her interview myself or one of the other 'non-free' registerants about their views on th matter. My opinions on firearms have been discussed countless times, I have no use for the personally, however I can appreciate the sport and the experience of knowing how to safely handle them, which is my reason to go.

I need to stop posting while sleep deprived, I get long winded.

[KingRat]

Re: press interest

I have little issue with the media....provided two things.
As TheCotMan brought up....I will only be willing to be taped if they're willing to do the same. To much crap gets "edited" these days. If for some reason they want to selectively edit us, a tape of them will help keep them "honest"
Second, I'm bringing a wrap for my face and using only my SN. As much as I love shooting....the risk is not worth any outcome for me. I don't care who knows who I am as long as I have some means of deniability with something like this.

Now...with that said, their actual intended purpose of taping us is very questionable. The paragraph from them is well written, but it's mainly catch phrases and feel good tid bits with no stated purpose....or did I miss something. Their main topic doesn't pertain to the DC shoot.

I would love to see a finished article, showing "Hackers" and how much forethought we put into our daily lives....as I can see the DC shoot in particular, making a good display of this.

Just my 2cents/Rant
KingRat

[Nikita]

Re: press interest

I think everyone here has made some really good points. I just wish the other press thread was an constructive with Ideas to fix our overall dilemma. I think we are going to revert to the old ways of doing it until we can make you guys happy with a compromise.

Regardless, I think what Cot said about asking if THEY would like to be filmed as well, really struck me as something I would LOVE to see happen. I'd love it actually if you guys filmed something for yourselves. I would propagate a piece like that like gangbusters. It would be stuff we could give them, pre censored to use in future situations, and it would be something DEF CON could use, to get the word out about "us". We don't have enough self made media to share. Hackers are people too is one I can think of, but why the hell are we not doing our own documentary and news reports? How do we start? Can we start? These things would be GREAT for DCTV, which I'm hoping makes a stronger bigger impact this year, there is talk of doing interviews and news, that's awesome, but what about the out of the con events, what about the other 11 3/4 months of the year.

Also, and no one's said it I don't think, recording THEM gives you accountability on them that they don't take it out of context if you have the entire footage, and you could also tell them, anything they run, needs to be ran by you first otherwise they can't come? Will probably start a freedom of the press debate but whatever.


On a separate note: I will say that back in the day I had some pretty clueless (probably still do) thoughts, beliefs and ideals about guns, about hackers, about a lot of things, but the open dialog and an open minds i've found in you guys, my def con family, has changed that for the better. I've learned that I have a lot to learn, I admit my faults and I do change my opinion from time to time. ASKING others ( like deviant did here) was the biggest things I had to learn also, I still suck at that, so kudos to him, he's never faltered on that once.

There was a time I swore to NEVER have a gun in my house. I now own A LOT, not insane amounts, but several handguns and several rifles and I'm encouraging my husband to save up for a scofield, because it's cool and he likes the wild westyness of it. I SWORE I would never have a gun because I thought I would never be able to pull the trigger on another person and that home invasion was a myth perpetrated by the media to scare us to death. Well, I have a kid and I can tell you I will shoot someone to protect him. I guess his life made me think another was worth taking. I also had people scare me enough, I was trapped and isolated in a rural area with no one around, no cell reception and no land line and people outside trying actively to get in, I sure did load that shotgun then and prayed my fear and uneducated hands could figure out how to use it without shooting my foot. Since then I realized there are no absolutes and a price for a hotel room in Shiloh Georgia is INSANE.

Just as sure as I was years ago in a strict NO Photo policy, ( OMG no one was a bigger advocate than me, I would CHASE you down and I always told people to stop, i STILL don't want to be filmed AT ALL ) Yet over time I saw reason for exemptions, I saw that not everything is black and white, and just as one poster said, sometimes you won't have a choice so you need to play the game. There is always an exception to every rule, except death I don't think that one has been beaten yet but we will never know, they're working on that one too.

That said, I don't think you by any means have to do anything, you are charging admission to your shoot right? does that grant you any rights? Right to refuse service? I don't know if you want to keep them off, there has got to be a way. Freedom of speech and press do have SOME restrictions I think.

Point being, times change, people change, how we approach things change ( oh lord was I hot headed and annoying ) I think if you posted this about 5 years ago, you would have gotten a different response, lol.

I think what Renderman said was pretty awesome and on point too. Especially how he'd not want something posted on social media to effect his job. It's probably a fault of mine in the entire press debate because I'm an open book on social media, oh lordy am I ever an open book. For a long while I played the well it's not my real name card, but that fight is pointless now.

I'm not looking for work, I don't think I will EVER be looking for work. I will probably work for DT until I am ready to be a stay at home mom and make neil bring in the proverbial bacon, and god forbid that changes and something happens where I am not his employee than I will make my own con, or go to work for one that has the same community spirit that this one does, because It's all I'm happy in life doing is keeping things like the DEF CON Shoot, well stocked with hackers who will be in the middle of the desert wanting to shoot a gun :-) However in this economy many are looking for work and are not as lucky as I am to have a job that I do love and that with some resemblance of job security. Maybe that is an angle you can use with them to reiterate the need for privacy and sympathy in how they conduct the b-roll, etc.

I'd be a fool to think that everything I post online will always be socially acceptable, I was proven that tonight when someone dug up an old blog post and used it out of context to tarnish my reputation and image. I even found I offended myself using a word I now find offensive to use, I had to learn how it was wrong. Even though no one has said anything to it, I do feel bad and I would now be rightly shamed if called out on my past ignorance.

One day shooting guns in the desert may be what the general media and society view as terrorism, one day a potential employee or gov't worker may deny you access or a job because you're a risk based off of some puff piece taken wrong. Remember, at one point alcohol was banned and women were told to smoke and drink while pregnant. It was socially acceptable to do it, but now if I saw a picture of my mom on facebook smoking while I was in the womb, you bet she would be reamed by the color of today's perspective ( medically backed perspective, and my mom didn't smoke) on smoking .

Sorry for my long rant, I should be working but I just wanted to add my thoughts for the hell of it.

[TheCotMan]

Re: press interest

I think everyone here has made some really good points. I just wish the other press thread was an constructive with Ideas to fix our overall dilemma. I think we are going to revert to the old ways of doing it until we can make you guys happy with a compromise.

Everyone has their own opinions. For me, this is partly different because it is a different event, different location, and runs under different rules. Since this is public land, it is possible that it is legal for them to show up and film and not require permission to broadcast their content. (Is PBS a commercial organization that makes money when using your likeness? And second, if this qualifies as, "News," then permission is almost certainly not required while in a public space. [I think] Deviant Ollam is not renting the land from the county, state or feds. I would guess his fees are for the setup of the event, and renting of tables and resources he will provide more than payments to use public land that is not being rented. If this distinction is true, then an issue is not, "if," they will be allowed to film, but if they will be invited or maybe welcomed, and what kinds of things they can expect if they show up. If they understand that they will be filmed and asked questions and the results may show up online separate from their interview, and risk debunking their shock journalism (assuming this is the results) then an understanding is created.

[Sometimes, cameramen can purposefully be antagonistic with people to get a response, and then turn their camera on the person they antagonized. Because of this, it would be a good idea to have at least 2 people filming their crew... one filming close enough to record audio, and another recording from a distance to show any kinds of intimidation or antagonism designed to evoke irrational responses, which is dramatic and more likely to be used in a program against this kind of thing.]

[Hidden cameras should be expected. If there is a crew with a camera and a boom mic, or sound control, just because they no longer have these near people being interviewed does not mean they are not being filmed. While these people from the press are present, we should assume that everything we do and say are being recorded on video.]

With Defcon, space is actually being rented, so it is legal to impose restrictions under penalty of loss of badge, and removal from Defcon as a private event.

Different difficulties must be addressed differently.

Regardless, I think what Cot said about asking if THEY would like to be filmed as well, really struck me as something I would LOVE to see happen. I'd love it actually if you guys filmed something for yourselves. I would propagate a piece like that like gangbusters. It would be stuff we could give them, pre censored to use in future situations, and it would be something DEF CON could use, to get the word out about "us".

This is problematic; at Defcon as nobody wants to follow around media all Defcon to get "catch" the media spinning a story or taking things out of context. At the Defcon shoot, there is no traveling around to see other things, you are where everyone is, and where filming is taking place, so no extra effort is required to film th people from the media along with the attendees that are fine with being filmed.

At the Defcon Shoot,the risk for casino cameras, and hidden high resolution cameras i pretty low. It is likely that a person wearing some sort of identification to show they do not want to be filmed will be filmed to include their face without them noticing this. (Ignore the possible use of a tiny, hidden, low-quality camera.) This can make use of clothing to identify people that do not want to be filmed at the defcon shoot a functional system, if peers respect it. At Defcon, it works against the same people because there are too many cameras. The hotel security can be acquired by feds, or local law enforcement, and a search for whatever agreed-upon symbol should be used for "please do not take my picture," can be used by the casino to search for people that may be wanted, and turn their find into police. (Certainly, unlikely, unless alleged crimes were against the casino or subsidiary.) The press can do the same and, "whoops! sorry about that. I guess left the camera rolling when we walked over by those people wearing the thing that says they don't want to be filmed. I guess I am just bad with technology like cameras even though I am a professional camera operator and photographer."

We don't have enough self made media to share. Hackers are people too is one I can think of, but why the hell are we not doing our own documentary and news reports? How do we start? Can we start? These things would be GREAT for DCTV, which I'm hoping makes a stronger bigger impact this year, there is talk of doing interviews and news, that's awesome, but what about the out of the con events, what about the other 11 3/4 months of the year.

I have a lot of video and pictures from Defcon, but I practice the older method when taking picture or video. (I do not have as many pictures as astcell.) I ask permission before I shoot, and then for people that gave no permission, I blur faces. [I want to clarify this point: Sometimes, I take a picture of a person, but there are people in the background that did not give permission. These are the people that get faces blurred.] Then, after I finish, for people I know, I put up the video for download and ask them if after seeing it, if they are ok with me publishing the video, and this is where there have been problems. [I only do this second check with people that I know when they are captured on video, often with sound. Video can convey an action, and when audio is included, speech that some people would prefer not be published. This is why a second round of, "are you sure?" is provided for people that I know.] Close to 90% of the video content I have is not publishable because someone walked across the video that did not want to be filmed, or people changed their minds after they got the video, or the video is really, really boring. [I filmed continuously at the Defcon shoot 2 years ago, mostly the backs of people that were firing weapons and at a distance to make it hard to make out faces MOST of the time. It is really mostly boring. I Have a video that I ran at 4x-8x speed (or there-about) and encoded at that speed for setup of the shoot to condense 20 minutes of setup to 3-4 minutes. Deviant Ollam has that, and he is free to publish it, make money with it or give it away free. Same with Merciless Mike and Noid.]

Yes, this is frustrating to have footage and images that I won't display, BUT the purpose of the videos is to share an experience or something that I thought was fun or interesting, NOT to make people I know uncomfortable, or unhappy. When the sharing of joy, fun and excitement leads to unhappiness, discomfort, regret, or other problems in the lives of the people I know, who were captured in video or images, then my action of publishing becomes an event that harms the social relationship I have with my peers. The action breaks trust and respect. The point of Defcon as a place to have fun becomes tainted, as attendee perceptions change, when they are reminded of a video that exposed them and their time at Defcon in a way that they viewed harmful,career limited, or something else. [In all of these cases where the people in videos said,"no," when I asked them again, I gave them the video with full copyright and licensing to publish however they want, make money or not. For those videos, it is in their control to choose to publish these or not. Another example? Chris and GodMinusOne have copies of the FULL Goon Band concert/show the first time they played at Defcon. It if up to them if they ever want to release it. Such is the way of low drama, and respect for my peers.]

In short, it sucks to not be able to publish content but it would suck more to publish and harm these people I know.

Also, and no one's said it I don't think, recording THEM gives you accountability on them that they don't take it out of context if you have the entire footage, and you could also tell them, anything they run, needs to be ran by you first otherwise they can't come? Will probably start a freedom of the press debate but whatever.

Hopefully, no freedom of the press debate. :-)

What you describe was exactly the reason for recording the media at the Defcon shoot; Especially if their crew was honest and open in answering questions we asked of them on film.

On a separate note: I will say that back in the day....

A place for a free exchange of ideas from those that know to those that are interested is something that has been central to Defcon. Sometimes people want to learn about an exploit, other times a tool, then later a technique, and even later, maybe how to party like the <insert group name that likes to party>. Defcon becomes a pre-arranged time and place for people to journey and congregate for whatever they consider fun.

Sorry for my long rant, I should be working but I just wanted to add my thoughts for the hell of it.

Ahhh, you are just trying to challenge me to the crown of, "who can type the most text in posts on regular basis." I doubt you will steal my one of my other crowns, "who can write stuff so boring, I read it to fall asleep," as I think I am stuck with that one.

[You better not even think of trying to steal my, "king of the unfunny jokes," crown, because I have worked really hard to earn that one. :-]

[renderman]

Re: press interest

Two things:

One, I was thinking to myself about recording them recording us as a truth enhancing thing. I will have a consumer digital video camera that I will bring to the shoot to be passed around to anyone who is being interviewed or filmed to provide an unblinking eye. If we dont like what they release, we can release the raw footage to show the problem.

Second, I will make sure to pack the same camera with me at all times. If you are being interviewed, feel free to ask me to film the interview from the side or borrow the camera and do it yourself.

This 'Camera O' truth' was a donation to our hackerspace and only cost me a replacement battery charger and the SD card, so if something horrible happens, I'm not going to cry (dont let it happen and if it does, you owe me beer). It's pretty simple to use and immediatly accessible digitally.

I would hope that my reputation is enough assurance that I would store the raw footage safely and not put it out for public consumption unless a case is made where it is needed (in public, likely plead your case here) in which case I would release the realivant clip to the person being interviewed to do with what they will to reveal the truth (if multiple people are involved, permission sought). If we want to use the footage for DCTV, etc, we can figure that out post-con

I would suggest others do the same and lets get a few of these to keep things fair and honest. I think that if press were made aware of this filming (and assured it's not for general public release unless they do something bad) it might help.

Not a solution to the entire 'dont take my picture' problem, but a solution to the main issue which is that of press.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: press interest

here's the latest reply that i sent back to Rebecca Wexler...

Some updates...

The discussion is proceeding via our online forum and also through many emails and messages being sent directly to me by various folk in the community. The general tenor of what is being said is that many people would welcome you to the event, but there is an undercurrent souring people's feelings and this is simply tied to the number of times that the DEFCON community has been so badly abused in the past by print and film media.

A number of parties have written to me expressing concerns about the somewhat vague summary we have so far concerning the direction and focus of your piece. This, combined with some of your previous body of work (both professional and academic), has people worried about ulterior motives or perhaps simply a sensationalistic piece may be in the works.

I think people would still support your involvement if I pursue a few points further with you...

1. Story Focus - I know that many (if not most) endeavors in journalism do not have a set path. You can select a topic area and then let the facts and the experiences form their own roadmap as you go. However, knowing a little more about even the basic framework that you have in your head would be a big plus for us and would probably allay a lot of fears from people who don't want to see a story in the vein of "Are hackers running terrorist training camps in order to take over your school's computers via a military assault?"

2. Documenting Your Process - A few of the event participants have expressed interest in you yourselves appearing on camera, both for some possible interview questions as well as just to give a better feel to the rest of the community regarding what it is like interacting with the press. As DEFCON continues to grow and mature, more and more hackers will be approached for interviews and such. Having a record for what it is like now can prepare others later. We hope you won't think of it as sousveillance and simply interest on our part. This point is likely a deal-breaker for most of the people at the event.

3. Filming Discipline - Much in the way that we can assure you that anyone who is a part of the above-mentioned group will stay clear of your filming shots and not interfere with your interviewing, etc... we just wanted to be doubly-certain that you can architect your filming in a way that does not capture some areas of our range (i'm going to be doing my best to keep all press-conscious people on the far side). We plan on making some of the shooting line available for filming (after all, you do need some B-Roll and other bits to produce a proper segment) but overall people want to be secure in the knowledge of where they can and can't stand safely.

... sorry for the long list on my three points there. We do look forward to your response and we'll see how this all pans out.

we still have plenty of time to adjust things and such before the Shoot. let's see how things go.

[pukingmonkey]

Re: press interest

I was thinking to myself about recording them recording us as a truth enhancing thing.

Needs to be done as it cannot hurt, and if it's not done, the only record is thier side.

However I think it has little real world prevention or even a "look it's not quite like that.". So after it's been spliced into a a piece on militias that runs on "frontline" no one will be looking another side of the story, and where would the raw footage be? not side by side with the aired program.

[priest]

Re: press interest

If we have RSOs & security to keep people safe, like

So I'd be opting out. No name and dark glasses the entire time.

Try sun glasses and a hoodie.

As to trusting the press... They do have an agenda. Especially the reporters who publicly admit bias like this one.

She will never give up her "journalistic freedom" and allow you to pre-screen/approve her story. Which means she can say all she wants to about how she will report it but at the end of the day say whatever she wants.

Unfortunately I think the chances of this story devolving into a panic filled wail about anarchistic antagonistic subversive "hackers" armed to the teeth and the need for much stricter gun control followed by the standard rant about if the world were run by wise vegan lesbian women of color instead of meat eating white heterosexual men it would be a much better place are very high.

[seeess]

Re: press interest

The press can do the same and, "whoops! sorry about that. I guess left the camera rolling when we walked over by those people wearing the thing that says they don't want to be filmed.

That brings up the next question, assuming we do have ways to tell others you don't want to be filmed, what happens when you are? Telling them "stop" doesn't really prevent them from doing it again. Deleting the picture can be recovered (hopefully people understand that here). And taking the memory card is a pretty dick move for someone that honestly just made a mistake.