writes "Earlier this week, slashdot covered the EFF's criticism of the Burning Man Photo Policy. Burning Man has now responded on their own blog:
"In fact, there are but two essential reasons we maintain these increased controls on behalf of our community: to protect our participants so that images that violate their privacy are not displayed, and to prevent companies from using Burning Man to sell products."
"We don't remove images from pages just because they criticize us (I've never been involved in taking down an image from an editorial blog criticizing Burning Man, and it's certainly not because there haven't been any!). We're also not at all interested preventing participants from sharing their personal imagery or impressions of the event on third party sharing sites in a noncommercial manner, so long as they observe the concerns about privacy and commercialism. We're delighted to see people sharing videos, stories, and pictures on our official Facebook page, and we know that it, along with Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo, etc. are representative of the way many of us share personal imagery in the digital age.""
writes "OK, we already know advertisers will pay millions, for our eyes, ears, thoughts, preferences, influences, friendlists, emails, histories, our clicks, and our referrers..
why not offer to sell it to them wholesale? what sane ad company would refuse if i told them they could HAVE my information for free, provided they analyze it, give me the data after, and could send me marketing materials based on what they found? all the big players in advertising have been pulled into court for this, why not make the submission complete and admit that we are consumers of not just products, but advertising, and some, we'll put up with, and some we won't, some, we might even buy.
now, imagine a lot of people banded together and did this? maybe we can rip something back from the advertisers?"