Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

[astcell]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

That won't work. Imagine taking pictures but you cannot take one of anyone wearing an analog watch. Same issue. You spend more time searching for the watch than the picture to take. Today anyone who wants to remain totally anonymous does not go to Defcon or any convention. We all understand cameras are everywhere, from Hotel Security to tween's iphones. We have had the 20th anniversary video with video shooters roaming the halls on Segways. There was no backlash that these cameras existed, and the video has been viewed many times. I have yet to hear a single complaint of anyone in any video. We are not 99% underground any more.

If you seriously don't want your picture taken, then you have no concept of cameras which exist in public locations. At Defcon or any other event you can simply ask for the pic to be deleted. I always delete. I don't crop, blur, or tweak. I delete. It is that promise whiuch enables me to be trusted with a camera.

I see in your post you said "if there was an easy way to tell if someone did not want photos taken of them" which means that you are trying to police a non-existent people. Just who is "them?" Just who is "someone?" Please, if you are a bystander who does not have a dog in the fight, please sit down and stop trying to cause conflict where none exists. I'd love to see a post here from someone saying that they do not now or ever want THEIR picture taken, they have asked folks to delete pictures, and what their results were. If they truly exist.

[shrdlu]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

That won't work...Today anyone who wants to remain totally anonymous does not go to Defcon or any convention. We all understand cameras are everywhere, from Hotel Security to tween's iphones. We have had the 20th anniversary video with video shooters roaming the halls on Segways. There was no backlash that these cameras existed, and the video has been viewed many times. I have yet to hear a single complaint of anyone in any video. We are not 99% underground any more.

I don't think that it ever was 99% underground, but it's not even 1% nowadays. Of course, that's one of the zillion reasons why I no longer show...but read on, MacDuff.

If you seriously don't want your picture taken, then you have no concept of cameras which exist in public locations. At Defcon or any other event you can simply ask for the pic to be deleted. I always delete. I don't crop, blur, or tweak. I delete. It is that promise which enables me to be trusted with a camera.

Mostly this always worked. When it didn't, in past, there were easy solutions. On the other, other hand, there were ALWAYS pictures that happened that you had no control over. I actually went to the bother of contacting people who'd posted pictures of me to ask that they either edit me out, or take them down. I never had a refusal (but that was a LONG time ago).

I see in your post you said "if there was an easy way to tell if someone did not want photos taken of them" which means that you are trying to police a non-existent people. Just who is "them?" Just who is "someone?" Please, if you are a bystander who does not have a dog in the fight, please sit down and stop trying to cause conflict where none exists. I'd love to see a post here from someone saying that they do not now or ever want THEIR picture taken, they have asked folks to delete pictures, and what their results were. If they truly exist.

I do not now, or ever, want my picture taken. Then again, I understand that it's no longer possible to make this request. I stay home. It works for me, and I like it. Besides, there's no convenient pool to accidentally knock someone into.

This particular issue became unmanageable about DC6, when Fox Newz found us, and to pretend otherwise is nothing but foolishness.

XXOO, Astcell.

[t0x0]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

The blinky lights idea is interesting, especially if it were something easily identifiable programmatically - have a firmware or physical switch on the badge to set the pattern to "no pictures" (it'd have to be static, blinking wouldn't work) then release a tool that will scan a set of images and perform an action based on the setting seen...probably not viable with the thousands of pictures folks like Astcell take, but still a cool idea.

[Bbox]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

It seems that it is a fairly small group anymore who have a major problem with picture taking, however I hate the fact that they feel they should stay home, they miss out on a lot and we probably miss out on the value they bring.

How about if you don't want to be identified you wear a "domino mask" it worked for Batman's sidekick Robin, the Lone Ranger and even Zorro. You can even make believe you are at an eyes wide shut type of an event.

[shrdlu]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

It seems that it is a fairly small group anymore who have a major problem with picture taking, however I hate the fact that they feel they should stay home, they miss out on a lot and we probably miss out on the value they bring.

I don't think I've missed much, to be truthful. There's WAY too many people, and I suspect my natural response to that would get me into serious trouble.

How about if you don't want to be identified you wear a "domino mask" it worked for Batman's sidekick Robin, the Lone Ranger and even Zorro. You can even make believe you are at an eyes wide shut type of an event.

I'd like to think you were kidding on those suggestions. It isn't whether or not I want to be identified; it's whether or not I get to choose on having my picture taken (or being jostled in a line, or having people stand too close, or bothering me before coffee). Yeah, I really am that antisocial. It's not new.

I also point out that having special blinky lights on a badge that says "I don't want to be photographed" is a red flag that guarantees you *will* be. Same with anything else that makes you look different, or unusual. I used to be pretty good at blending in, and that's really the best method.

BTW, it was *always* just a small group that objected, far as I can remember.

[t0x0]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

I'd love to see a post here from someone saying that they do not now or ever want THEIR picture taken, they have asked folks to delete pictures, and what their results were. If they truly exist.

I don't now, nor have I ever wanted my picture taken (although I have acquiesced when inebriated). I have asked a few folks over the years not to take or to delete my picture (I'm good at evading a lens, hence why it's only a few), and while most have agreed, I've had a couple act like I was asking them to rape their mother. It's not life or death to me, since I avoid pictures more for the potential for a problem in the future than for anything that will affect me today, so I still attend. However, if I were supreme commander, no cameras would exist at con.

[astcell]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

No cameras, and cell phones with cameras, is not going to happen. You may as well try to disarm Texas. Even the courts have given up on that, asking instead that no pictures be taken inside the courthouses. If anyone wants a pic deleted the photographer will not comply, well.... we can play "what if" all day long. I am sure those who have indeed had issues with cameras either talk to the shooter or a goon and things get solved. I don't see posts here from hundreds of people with valid complaints, just a few folks asking "what if" and not having been victims themselves.

My DC22 folder has almost 80,000 hits and I was nicely asked to remove one guy's picture. My DC23 folder has almost 30,000 hits and not one complaint yet. And that is only two out of all those folders since DC8.

Basically the odds of being struck and killed by lighting are better than finding a photo hater who isn't happy.

[eris]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

Wow photos were pretty okay since about Defcon 18, so 21 should be a normal event for you. You should have seen Defcon 8 or 9 when cameras could end up in the pool. It is still okay to ask that pictures be deleted becaus you are in them, and if the person refuses then let a goon know.

Yup. DC...10? I got verbally violent with a person about taking a photo of my boyfriend because he was on probation at the time and wasn't supposed to leave California. The dude taking the photo almost pissed his pants but if he had deleted the photo when I asked him too I wouldn't have had to get in his face! Now? Psssh...I know it should be a concern, and most people do try, but con is a MUCH MORE PUBLIC affair now. Be proactive about if you care, and keep an eye out. See something, say something. Is that fair or just? No, but sometimes you gotta go with the flow of the times.

[eris]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

It seems that it is a fairly small group anymore who have a major problem with picture taking, however I hate the fact that they feel they should stay home, they miss out on a lot and we probably miss out on the value they bring.

How about if you don't want to be identified you wear a "domino mask" it worked for Batman's sidekick Robin, the Lone Ranger and even Zorro. You can even make believe you are at an eyes wide shut type of an event.

Include this on every DEF CON sticker set and "put this on your badge if you don't want to participate."



Is it just or fair? No, but it sure does make its point loud and clear. Hey, Vendors, sticker idea for you!!!!

[astcell]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

It's not that easy to see badges that swing around and get covered by other stuff. If you do not want your picture taken, then stay out of hotels, fast food restaurants, malls, businesses, do not use ATMs, do not walk in public, and do not ever ever ever visit London. If yuou do all that I'll take your desire for no pictures seriously.

[t0x0]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

If yuou do all that I'll take your desire for no pictures seriously.

There's a big difference between photos that are almost guaranteed to get put on the net, and security footage that will almost certainly get wiped in <90 days barring some event making the tape evidence. I understand your disagreement with our desires, i don't understand your refusal to recognize the inherent difference between photos and video that are by nature ephemeral and unlikely to be distributed and those which are by nature nearly permanent and almost certain to be distributed.

To turn your style of argument around, why do you insist on taking thousands of pictures? That hasn't even been historically possible, so why must you do it? Do you take pictures everywhere, including intimate moments, bathrooms and funerals? Until you do, I won't take your desire to take pictures seriously.

[astcell]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

Security footage getting wiped in 90 days? BWAHAHAHA! I used to buy Digital8 tapes on Ebay for my Canon GL-1. Guess where I got them. They were once-used security tapes of elevators, stairwells, hospital rooms, hallways, etc. While the videos are black and white, they are very easy to see the people and events going on. Wiping unused tapes is a policy, not a law. Just because you do not see the images of you does not mean someone else doesn't. Some of the videos even make it into the commercial market. Google "Caught on camera" for ideas. Sex at work, in hallways, elevators, yup someone got these videos and makes a VHS of the video to sell, for profit. I say VHS because this is really old news. Today the same footage just goes online to liveleak or some other similar site. When you see a security camera in a building and it is on a network, you have to assume anyone can and will logon to it.

Anyone can pretty much log into any unsecure webcam online worldwide with a search of data specific to the camera. Fish-cams, coffee-cams, even baby monitors, hotels, and schools. Yup plenty of schools have webcams where you can see your kid's classroom at school from your phone or PC. Call and ask for a logon. My groomer has a camera where I can see my dog getting a haircut, and some car repair shops let you see a webcam of repairs in progress. In fact I just now did a search for dlink cameras with unsecure online feeds just now. Bingo, I'm in a house. It's not even hacking, they GIVE the information away. And people remove security features because they are too lazy to make a password.

Didn't Defcon have a lot of talks regarding this sort of this stuff? Maybe it's time for another talk?

So yes there is a difference, but the lines are getting blurred more every day. To ask me to not take your picture because of "security" is fine with me (actually you do not even need a reason), but then to let your friends take pictures of you which I can easily find on Flickr an hour later makes no sense. That's not security, that's control. You may be in control of what pictures of you are taken but after that they are as wild as the wind.

As for where I take pictures, just about everywhere. I have shot a few funerals. The last one was open casket and people wanted pictures with the dearly departed. It was the first time I ever did that and it felt a bit weird since it was a completely new experience for me. Intimate moments, well that's a broad brush. I recall seeing a couple very in love and I took pictures of them. Very romantic images. They were in a public place so no laws were even bent. Then next time I saw them I gave them several images. The guy wanted to buy the negatives off of me. That was not his wife and he thought I was blackmailing him! (I destroyed the images and negs for him. This was in 1981, so cameras have been around a long time). As for more risque' intimate moments, there was recently an Apple hack which released personal nudes of movie stars into the public. I bet they thought since they took the picture and they had it on their personal phone that there would be total security.

Sounds to me like security has gone the way of the passenger pigeon.

Now for Defcon, the lens I use 99% of the time is a 24-70, which means I'm usually close enough to the subject for them to see me. Longer lenses are good for speakers or musicians on stage. I don't skulk around with infra-red super telephoto gear to try to get a picture inside a darkened hotel room from a mile away. The technology to do so exists, but my desire (or the demand) for such images do not.

And to your last point, why must I take pictures? Pictures are memories to be shared and treasured. Surely you have pictures that you treasure that were not shot by a person who takes their camera into bathrooms. And no doubt you have taken a picture or two that may be a technical nightmare, but someone treasures the image for the memory it brings them. And you are only too happy to supply them with the image for perpetual enjoyment.

Why so many pictures? I've shot 10-20 rolls at weddings and printed only 12, and shot 20-30 rolls at football games only to have a single image published. I shot 151 rolls in three weeks in Japan. Why? Because there is SO MUCH to see. But when I show off my pictures do I inundate you with all of them? No. I select what I think you may like based on conversation and experience. I have my data repositories but only share a fragmnent of it.

But when we talk about online you are not the only person looking at my images. Thank heavens for Google Analytics. I can see what images are popular and which ones are not, and adjust my technique accordingly. If no one cares for a specific group of images, I will see what they have in common and simply stop shooting that subject. I'd hope my work was serving a purpose. No sense in wasting everyone's time (besides, maybe a security camera is shooting it at the same time).

At DC13 I shot a couple in the pool. The women got out of the pool and ran over to me. I thought she was mad and wanted the picture deleted. Instead she loved the picture and felt it captured "the moment" and wanted me to email her a copy. We've been friends ever since.

Do you take issue with the Defcon Documentary? Do you feel that it created a watershed moment in the photo policy from which we cannot go backward?

You know, I mentioned earlier about how often I get asked to delete images (rarely if ever) and how often I do so (anytime asked). Know what else I get asked a LOT more? "Did you get any pictures of me?" "Can you send me the links or a DVD?" So it appears the demand FOR images is greater. The tide has shifted and the masses have spoken. At least with digital we can delete a single image upon request instead of tougher control management regarding film cameras. Seems like a win/win for everyone.

[t0x0]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

Your points are well taken, and I appreciate the considered response to my tongue-in-cheek, if not entirely rhetorical questions.

I don't disagree there is a possibility that security video/stills will be made public, and in some cases they are. Sometimes they're even streamed live to the internet. However, to use your example of used security tapes being sold, how many hundreds or thousands of hours of footage were taped over before you obtained them? And for the streamed video, how much of that is actually recorded and available, if nothing exciting happens? My point was simply that for someone whose actions are unobtrusive and legal, the likelihood of video or pictures from the ever-ubiquitous security camera being made public is far lower than that from an individual photographer, invalidating your conflation of security footage with photos and video taken by an individual.

Your explanation of the photographer's mindset does help me understand why you do what you do, and I can definitely see how many people wouldn't care or would appreciate your work. I also agree that culturally, pictures and video are recorded everywhere and it may be relatively few people who avoid them. However, I do. There are no pictures of me on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Flickr, Picasa or elsewhere that I have control over. Several other people have chimed in on various threads who also avoid pictures. Look at this from the other side, are photos a vital part of Defcon to anyone other than photographers?

As for the Defcon Documentary, I do and did object to it - the easy example of why is at 15:34 where the cameraman is asked not to record a guy in the hall, and clear footage of him went into the documentary anyway. That alone belies your argument that everyone deletes footage/pictures when the subject doesn't want to be recorded. Matter of fact, I disagreed with several DCXX choices but that's entirely beside the point. Was the documentary a watershed event? Probably...leadership OKed video of the con. Kinda hard to argue that photography shouldn't be allowed after that happened, regardless of what I or any number of others want.

For the most part, I keep my mouth shut about it because it's not my con. I don't goon, I don't put my blood, sweat, tears and money into the con, I just attend. As an attendee, I prefer to avoid pictures, and would be happier if there were none. The only reason I even started chiming in on this thread was your comments about "if they even exist" and "If yuou do all that I'll take your desire for no pictures seriously." I have officially proclaimed my desires and existence.

Anyway, continue to do as you please, since obviously leadership doesn't care to stop you and there don't seem to be rules (at least, none that are well defined) forbidding photography. But take us and our desire to avoid pictures seriously. Your comments implying that no one REALLY cares and that we're misrepresenting the situation are insulting. Please recognize our views and their legitimacy, and disagree with us civilly.

[astcell]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

The tapes I bought were used once and then sold. Most security places are unable to re-use tapes because the defense can always argue that the tape was double exposed and you are not seeing the true original video. This may be true for film, but remember the types of people on the jury. It's cheap enough to use one tape once, with 3:1 time lapse, and extended play. Regardless, I do see your point, that a million hours are tapes any given day and I only retrieved 8 hours of it. The odds are very good that there is nothing incriminating in the tapes, assuming I bought them to look at them.

Along the same security idea, ever go to Goodwill and see hard drives for sale? I see them all the time and I am tempted to buy some just to see what is on them. And out of the thousands of computers chucked away ever day I find two hard drives in one week. So once again the odds are low that it's anyone we know.

And yes you are right, your odds of being published are higher when there is a camera in the room which is brought out to cover an event in which you participate. No argument there.

Remember that funeral I shot? I was also asked to dig for pictures I may have taken of the gentleman from ten years ago. We also had a new department head put in place and people wanted to know if I had pictures of him from when he started out. I always love how people think photographers all know one another and what images they have. :-) This shows that people usually wants pictures AFTER the fact. When the hacker community lost Ghent, Josh, and PoolBoy, I was asked if I had any images of them to share. Obviously the no photo policy cannot be retroactive. To give pictures you have to take pictures.

You ask: "Are photos vital to Defcon to anyone but us photographers?" Well I do not know about vital, they're not nuclear launch codes or anything. Heavily desired by others? Most definitely. Defcon is not the only event I shoot, and, for example, when I attended another Con they flew me out to their city, put me up in my own hotel room, paid me, and fed me. So yes, it was worth enough to that party. What if Defcon was going to not allow cameras at all? I'd live. Our world would not end.

At the AP I received a very rare and highly desired invite to a party by a specific group. When I got there they saw my camera and told me no cameras. I said okay I'd just carry my camera on my shoulder and not take pictures (like a cop may carry his gun). They said no, put it back in my room. To their amazement I opted to not attend the party. But the important thing is that we were all happy. I do not want to go where I am not wanted. I'm not going to argue why I need my camera or why I am not going to delete a picture. I make enemies that way. No thanks.

Let me find that 15:34 moment before I comment....the guy said "stop recording" and the cameraman did as requested. Maybe "delete that" or "don't use any of me that you just may have shot" would be correct. "Stop recording" means to stop from this point forward. I have been asked "no more pictures" meaning that what I shot to date is sufficient. That does not mean delete what I already have. Maybe when the camera was off the guy said he did not want whatever he had in the bag to be recorded but the footage of him walking is fine. I guess we will never know. But he did stop recording when asked to stop.

There are several points in the video I disagree with completely, but remember it covers the experiences of 12,000 people, the majority of whom I never see, and with whom I shall never interact. Therefore portions of the video are new to me and I shall never cross paths with those people IRL.

It's not that leadership cares to stop me or not. Leadership requested me. When I shoot at Defcon I wear a Goon shirt. I donate my time and effort to giving what I can to an event which I love. My attendance in many contests and talks is decimated by this choice.

I apologize for the comment that "no one really cares." Obviously I was wrong. I know you are not alone. There are people who avoid cameras just as there are those who hog them. And as I stated previously, I do delete images if there is ANY question about them or a person in them, both in camera and online.

[t0x0]

Re: Communication and enforcement of DEFCON photo policy

Thanks again for the replies, I've learned a few things. I'll see you next year!