Let me try to restate this with the understanding that I'm
talking about what is convenient and/or necessary for carrying
on the work of the IETF and not trying to interpret German law.
I will accept your interpretation as stated but, if that
interpretation is correct, I believe the IETF should not meet
there while those provisions are in effect unless at least one
of the following conditions arises:
(i) the IETF can reasonably require that people give permission
--irrevocable for the length of time they are at the meeting --
as needed to permit the IETF to do things that are considered
convenient of necessary. That is still voluntary in the sense
that attending the meeting is voluntary and still revocable by
leaving the meeting and not coming back-- one can just decide
that, if one doesn't want to volunteer to permit one's picture
to be taken, one can't attend the meeting. If you are saying
that it is illegal to impose a condition that binds the two
together, that is fine: unless the other condition applies, we
shouldn't be meeting in Germany. I presume, by asserting that
such a binding is not permitted, you are also asserting that
corporate ID badges with pictures on them have disappeared from
Germany or are discretionary on a per-employee basis because a
corporate requirement that, in order to remain employed, one
must wear such a badge wouldn't be voluntary either.
(ii) The IETF concludes that it doesn't need what I think is
reasonable and, in particular, that if I need to record who has
his or her hands up in a WG poll, it is better for me to take
the time to send people through the room asking for and writing
down names than to take pictures. Note that an extra checkmark
on the blue sheets or an RFID walk-by doesn't work, because part
of my goal is to have everyone in attendance at the WG meeting
able to see who (else) has her hand up.
I have almost no preference between the two. I do care that, as
WG Chair, I'm not expected to manage things in an environment in
which I can ask for volunteers or commitments without being able
to establish who made them. And, if the second choice above is
the choice of the community, I believe I have the reasonable
right to expect that I can ask for WG slots a half-hour longer
than I would otherwise need and expect to get it, even if that
means an extra half-day or day of meetings.
--On Wednesday, 25 April, 2012 00:17 +0200 Martin Rex
John C Klensin wrote:
I strongly encourage the
IASA to avoid ever holding an IETF meeting in Germany again
without first obtaining appropriate legal advice that it is
acceptable given our existing conditions to record the names
and identities of anyone participating in any IETF activity,
That does _not_ require a photo.
whether they are explicitly sign something,
are photographed, are identified by RFID,
Keep in mind that if it isn't _voluntary_ consent, it will be
legally void, even with a signature on it.
have their names written down after they say something at a
microphone or on Jabber, raise their hands (presumably in the
expectation of being identified), or can be identified in
some other way.
What is wrong about simply archiving the information that
participants are providing voluntarily, such as it has been
the last 20 years?
In Germany, an employer is not entitled to have and use a
photo or picture of an employee without explicit, voluntary
and anytime revocable consent of that employee (with very few
and very narrow exceptions carefully scoped by the
legislator). Writing something to a different effect into the
employment contract will be legally void, because the consent
to use the picture MUST be voluntary and anytime revocable.
Of course, an acceptable alternative to "no meetings in
Germany or any other country with the rules you suggest
apply" would be explicit permission on registration forms as
a condition of attendance. Or, presumably, a Chair could
make an announcement that anyone who continues to sit in a
particular room is giving permission for such identification.
Please do not confuse any necessity to identify an originator
of a contribution (which is where data protection laws would
apply) and the personal privacy rights of individuals about
photos&portraits of themselves.