Photo editing

[Dark Tangent]

Hey, what should we do when someone uploads pics that have no description and no keywords? I'm thinking of the batch I just approced from glitch that didn't even have any descriptive names.

I could tell by them that the pics were fgrom DC-14, so I put them all there instead of in the general DEF CON pics bucket. But should the mods go back and update the info on pictures if they can?

[glitch]

Re: Photo editing

yeah sorry about that.
I had incorrectly assumed that I could go back in and edit the names and descriptions after I had uploaded them. Which is why they have such non descriptive names.

[TheCotMan]

Re: Photo editing

yeah sorry about that.
I had incorrectly assumed that I could go back in and edit the names and descriptions after I had uploaded them. Which is why they have such non descriptive names.

We're still working out how things should work. Maybe we should have an open period for people to go back and edit their image descriptions?

Ideas welcome.

[theprez98]

Re: Photo editing

We're still working out how things should work. Maybe we should have an open period for people to go back and edit their image descriptions?

Ideas welcome.

Shouldn't the uploader always have the option to go back and edit their image descriptions? If not, why not?

[TheCotMan]

Re: Photo editing

Shouldn't the uploader always have the option to go back and edit their image descriptions? If not, why not?

We started from a view, like the forums, where once something is posted, there is a window to edit it, but eventually, the comments remain stuck.

With unlimited edit, people that want to revise history can try to do so, and any account that has its authentication credential stolen becomes a risk for defacement. When people get upset, they may go back and edit photos to provide comments that differ from what they provided previousl such as flame a person, or something worse.

Allowing edits also makes moderation more difficult as thenumber of images and comments to check becomes a lits of not only new images, but all existing images.

At this time, email doesn't work, so there is no support for image notification on change either.

We can still move to allow for edits at any time, but this may mean allowing users to delete entire albums and remove content from any historical record when they "grow up and decide they want to hid their fun at defcon as if it was some sort of fraternity or soroity period that should be kept in a shoebox instead of shared."

You are not the only one that would like edit/delete capabilities. Who else would like to see this? Counterpoints to the above are welcome, as this is a discussion. :-)

[theprez98]

Re: Photo editing

We started from a view, like the forums, where once something is posted, there is a window to edit it, but eventually, the comments remain stuck.

With unlimited edit, people that want to revise history can try to do so, and any account that has its authentication credential stolen becomes a risk for defacement. When people get upset, they may go back and edit photos to provide comments that differ from what they provided previousl such as flame a person, or something worse.

Allowing edits also makes moderation more difficult as thenumber of images and comments to check becomes a lits of not only new images, but all existing images.

At this time, email doesn't work, so there is no support for image notification on change either.

We can still move to allow for edits at any time, but this may mean allowing users to delete entire albums and remove content from any historical record when they "grow up and decide they want to hid their fun at defcon as if it was some sort of fraternity or soroity period that should be kept in a shoebox instead of shared."

You are not the only one that would like edit/delete capabilities. Who else would like to see this? Counterpoints to the above are welcome, as this is a discussion. :-)

Having never been to defcon before (thanks Navy!), I don't have any pics to upload (at least not to the con galleries), so perhaps I'm arguing from weak footing already. However, if I uploaded the pics, the only "history" I'd be "revising" would be my own.

I understand the risk of defacement, but to me that risk seems pretty low. Is there really a considerable threat that someone would go to such lengths as to steal another's defcon forum credentials so that they could go into the pics and change a few captions? Also, doesn't this apply to uploading pictures as well? If someone stole my defcon forum credentials, they could upload pictures on my behalf as well--and they could already do that given the current "rules". So the option to edit them seems like a secondary and minor concern overcome by existing rules.

I see the disclaimer about copyrights and republishing, but absent a disclaimer that "once all pics are uploaded they become property of defcon pics" (which may be there somewhere although I didn't see it), any pics someone uploaded by someone still belong to them, and they ought to have the right to edit, remove, or otherwise change them or the accompanying captions.

I surely hope I don't appear to be constantly butting heads with you on these issues! ;)

[TheCotMan]

Re: Photo editing

Having never been to defcon before (thanks Navy!), I don't have any pics to upload (at least not to the con galleries), so perhaps I'm arguing from weak footing already. However, if I uploaded the pics, the only "history" I'd be "revising" would be my own.

Generally, the person that owns copyright on images, is the person that took the picture. As a result, most pictures of people taken by people are of other people. If you accept this, then the history being revised is quite often about other people-- people in the pictures. ]:>

I understand the risk of defacement, but to me that risk seems pretty low. Is there really a considerable threat that someone would go to such lengths as to steal another's defcon forum credentials so that they could go into the pics and change a few captions? Also, doesn't this apply to uploading pictures as well? If someone stole my defcon forum credentials, they could upload pictures on my behalf as well--and they could already do that given the current "rules". So the option to edit them seems like a secondary and minor concern overcome by existing rules.

This is where it becomes tricky. Consider a case, where two people are friends or lovers. There is a falling out between them. The previous words of kindness (if offered) could easily be altered to "Slut!" or "Whore!" or any number of other things. Changes to old images could easily remain hidden from view, because mods, having viewed old images would probably not go back and visit them for legal problems associated with libel. (Legally, this covers not only words in print, but also images.)

By "sealing" old images from edit, the only thing exposed with account break-in includes new pictures and new comments. New pictures will likely be viewed by many more people (and mods) much sooner than any arbitrary old image.

(I imagine a system with thousands of pictures, that few people would want to check, with any kind of frequency, for changes-- a tedious, boring job I would not want to give to anyone.)

I see the disclaimer about copyrights and republishing, but absent a disclaimer that "once all pics are uploaded they become property of defcon pics" (which may be there somewhere although I didn't see it), any pics someone uploaded by someone still belong to them, and they ought to have the right to edit, remove, or otherwise change them or the accompanying captions.

This is an issue brought up (I think) by shrdlu and others. From one view, this runs counter to individual freedoms. They would like to "lend" property (instead of give property) so that the property can be reclaimed at a later date. I would guess that at least 30% of the forums members or Defcon attendees (likely more) would prefer to have control over the choice to display or not display images.

However, allowing deletes means that any emotional outburst, change in personal affiliations, or stupid social politics between people with nothing better to do than start crap between each other, all risk loss of images, or change of captions from something endearing, nostalgic, or "good" to something libelous, or worse. If people had pictures posted showing them hanging out with "asshole" havig a good time, how many might want to remove them after "asshole" did what he did? Any kind of comment about him (positive or not) is now at risk for becoming enirely negative, and people revise history.

There certainly is no shortage of drama at Defcon. People under the influence meet people with large egos both of which which meet occasional strippers or perceived conquests, and many attendees are hopped up on RedBull (or somethine else), while staying up for 72 hours... who would guess there wouldn't be some sort of disagreement somewhere at Defcon? Most of these issues are "no big deal" and seem to be resolved quickly, but some last a lot longer, and then friends of people involved create artificial boundaries and groups as "for or against" and things just get stranger. (There are some points of drama that have lasted *years* with people eventually being thrown out of Defcon-- some of these have not been resolved to this day.) These problems are made worse by, "firestarters," that can distort the truth, spin information, and choose to try to escalate problems. (These kinds of people exist everywhere.)

It seems the older population at Defcon is less at risk for this crap than the younger population, but disagreements can happen over some of the most trivial things.

I surely hope I don't appear to be constantly butting heads with you on these issues! ;)

Not at all. Keep this discussion going. Users contribute ideas to how the forums should work and they can change the minds of mods. Change the minds of a majority of mods, and that one way to see changes in policies.

pics isn't even complete yet. We still need to fix the URL-upload tool, or deny its use as policy, and we need to fix mail. The issues of copyright need to be addresed, as well as policies for pics too.

Summary:
Being part of a discussion about how it should work at an early stage make changes and people to be more open to ideas.

Freedom to choose to destroy, reclaim and deny everyone else access to your own property is desired by many. It is something I would want to have available even if I chose not to use it.

The value in retaining content "as-is" gives us an unaltered snapshot of the moment the image was posted. Feelings, thoughts, opinions and the image can be cited, and linked to by others. NEW comments can be added, and each new comment can offer timestampts to changes in a person's opinion. What happens to the comments people make about a picture when the picture is deleted? Does this become a way for users to "delete" comments from mother members about their pictures by deleting the pictures, and reposting them?

Then, there is the problem of going back to look at each and every image for changes, to make sure comments don't violate policies. Stolen account credentials can lead to old content being modified without the original owners or mods being aware. It takes someone that notices, and doesn't like what they see enough to be willing and able to comment about it, to bring it to people's attention. When content is altered, people may claim , "oh, someone must have been playing in my account. Can you restore it to whatever I had there before?" Ug. Selective restore of db content? Searching through old backups for, "before data was changed," ? Ignore their request?

Here are some things that could help:
1) Continue to allow free posting for most users.
2) Require alterations to be reviewed before being applied, but at least make it possible to request.
3) Deny deletion of images, but allow image hiding, with the notice that hidden images will become visible again X years later unless set invisible again X years later. (Something that could eventually be automated.)

I don't think the above is supported, but can be investigated.