I’ve been a hacker since the Cap’n Crunch days, I’ve been involved with many hackerspaces around the world, used to sit at the pay phones in Union Station waiting for distant calls, some forgotten first Friday of the month .. and all I can say, anecdotally, is that this death by a thousand cuts is par for the course.
Hacker culture has been co-opted by a broad spectrum of folks - and a big part of the value of CCC is navigating that spectrum.
I’ve met plenty of folks that are annoying as fuck in this scene - but I’ve also met plenty of folks who are just great.
As for the camera thing - Germans have an aversion to being held accountable for their actions in public. It is a deep-seated fear of consequences born from a culture that literally thought it was acceptable, not so long ago, to spy on ones neighbors. They cram themselves into boxes upon boxes and live on top of 2000 other people they want nothing to do with. Just remind them, public photography is not a crime, and that there is no right to privacy in the public sphere, and why don’t they just smile and enjoy the fact that they are frozen in time on some strangers device, just like a strangers memory they have no right to erase. This is the needed context.
> Just remind them, public photography is not a crime
Photographing at CCC events (Congress and Camp) is permitted only if you get permission from all the people depicted on the photo. Yes, this makes wide shots of crowds effectively impossible to take there without breaking the event's rules. Everyone present there has agreed to that rule by coming there, so it's not unreasonable to expect them not to break it even if it's not a crime.
https://events.ccc.de/congress/2025/infos/fundamentals-and-f...
CCC is a private event and does not fall within the purview of the right to public photography.
Anyway, I don’t go to CCC to take pictures of people - although this is an unfortunate policy because it means that the culture of CCC is not recorded for posterity …
I think it would be a better policy for CCC to require photographers to wear a special easily recognized t-shirt or funny hat, so that they could take pictures of crowds but give non-participants time to dissent.
It’s a breath of fresh air IMHO to be at places far away from any desire for posterity. Just remember yourself what you’ve seen instead of outsourcing that job to your phone for a while.
For those of us who are aphantasiac, it is not possible to remember what we have seen ourselves.
The camera and sketchpad are the only options we have.
And while I have the utmost of empathy for your condition, that is unfortunately not a compelling reason to generally allow to violate the privacy of everyone else.
A good variant of that would be to ask participants to wear an "opt in" signal, so we don't end up in a situation where people are burdened by having to repeatedly decline photographers' requests for photos.
The entitlement of "I can photograph whatever I want"-people is unmatched, which is nicely demonstrated by this thread. Disrespectful, entitled and self-scentered.... individuals.
As a German I find it interesting that foreigners think that this is a cultural thing.
It is not. It's the law.
In Germany you are not allowed to photograph people without their written and signed consent. Any conference or event counts as a private event when it is organized on private property. If it's not a building or space owned by the city, it is private property. This includes e.g. swimming pools owned by the Stadtwerke (there have been lawsuits because of that, all decisions in favor of privacy).
For example, even cameras that protect your property by filming the outside area are not permitted to film the street, and they have to be arranged to point towards your own property. That's why even banks have cameras always on the corners of the building, pointing back to their own property.
Again, it's the law. It's pretty strict about this sort of thing, especially because of WW2 and post WW2 times, where a lot of people died because of Stasi misinformation or Zerstörungstaktik related things.
Source: was a helper and organizer of a lot of CCC events before 2021.
GDPR/DSGVO means you have to get written consent by all visitors, otherwise you cannot make photos of the event and publish them.
Berlin has many cameras that film the street, for example in front of the Deutsche Bundesbank.
And many Germans are deeply distrustful of such cameras.
And yet that hasn't stopped them from being put up everywhere.
There is a fine line, I agree - but I prefer to ask for forgiveness than permission when taking photo’s in public.
A society which censors the public sphere, endangers the public.
It’s a double-edged sword, and photography - like many technologies - can be weaponized against the individual; but it can also be used to gain justice against the crimes of the state.
The disrespect, entitlement and self-centered posturing goes both ways though, though.
“No, sorry, I wasn’t taking a picture of you, I was taking a picture of that cute dog - you just happened to be in the background, and I wouldn’t have anything to do with you if you weren’t so paranoid and self-centered…”
Public photography is a right which needs to be protected - by the public.
Just ask Rodney King. Or, you know, the children of Gaza. If you don’t know what either of those have to do with this discussion, you probably haven’t seen the photos…
You have no respect for the culture of the place and people you're interacting with.
"Use public data, protect private data" has been one of the main reasons in the CCC since the 80s, at the same time German Law and culture is different when it comes to taking pictures than what you seem used to. Maybe familiarize yourself with it before you break the law and claim everybody else is wrong.
Maybe, before you engage in thought-blocking totalitarian-authoritarian’ism, read what I have actually said.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49743649
I have a great deal of respect for German culture - this is why I live in a DACH state in the first place.
CCC is a private event and I absolutely concur that their policies are acceptable in that circumstance.
> German Law and culture is different when it comes to taking pictures than what you seem used to
No, in fact, I am quite familiar with the law - to the extent that I am prepared to defend my position.
One thing I don’t respect, is the German proclivity to repress the public sphere. You will never beat that out of me - I have seen the positive results of public photography deliver justice in plenty of cultures where it was desperately needed.
It is perfectly fine for me to take whatever pictures I want in the public sphere - as long as I respect others’ rights and wishes to not be the subject of that photography.
No, I haven't "seen the photos", literally, since I am blind. Which is also why "asking for forgiveness" wouldn't work with me, because, you know, I wouldn't even notice if you didn't ask for permission. Which nicely demonstrates that you are faaaar more entitled then you might be willing to admit. Also, there are differences from country to country when it comes to laws. And what constitutes public spaces. And so on, and so forth. But IANAL, so I am not willing to enter a back-and-forth with you. Just know that your attitude isn't universally accepted as OK.
You are projecting and don’t seem to know the law. I do, having taken thousands of great photo’s all over Germany.
Do you want to live in a free and open society or not?
The fact is, the general public having the ability to take photo’s of the scene in front of them - idyllic or horrific - is essential to the continued operation of our society.
Familiar with the Rodney King case, by any chance?
I have the right to live in a panopticon, but no right not to live in a panopticon, and the panopticon is essential to a free and open society??
C3 is not a public event. Neither are night clubs which decide to ban photography entirely. Taking photos is a right in the public sphere, a privilege in the private sphere.
> Just remind them, public photography is not a crime, and that there is no right to privacy in the public sphere, and why don’t they just smile and enjoy the fact that they are frozen in time on some strangers device, just like a strangers memory they have no right to erase. This is the needed context.
Hacker events are not public places and they are free to set different rules on photography. Considering it's a privacy and counterculture thing their aversion is pretty understandable IMO.
Former freelance camera operator who worked in Germany here: you are misrepresenting the legal situation. It is not automatically forbidden to take or even publish pictures of strangers, but the circumstances matter. Merely taking an identifiable person's picture can already infringe their personality rights, even without any intention to publish it. A request to delete it does not automatically settle the matter, but "we are in public" does not settle it either. See BGH, VI ZR 272/94 .
Publishing such a picture generally requires consent under § 22 KunstUrhG , with exceptions under § 23 . "There is no right to privacy in the public sphere" is simply not an accurate description of German law. And "not a crime" does not mean something cannot violate someone's rights.
The comparison with memory ignores what makes a recording different: it can be copied, distributed and matched against other records. Someone remembering my face does not give them the same capabilities as having a photograph of it.
And protecting personal information is hardly some recent corruption of hacker culture. The CCC's own ethics say "Make public data available, protect private data", an addition they date to the 1980s: CCC hacker ethics .
I think you will find that our opinions are in alignment actually. I never take pictures of strangers - in all cases where I have been asked to review such public pictures, the individuals have been incidental to the subject in focus.
CCC is a private event, though. They have every right to the policies they enforce, and I am perfectly fine with adhering to these policies when I attend - after all, I also do not want my photo in some spook database.
But, on the bus? In the park? On a sidewalk in a public street? It is unreasonable to censor these environments.
The law very stringently allows for public photography - it does not allow for weaponization or commercialization of that photography against an individual.
> Just remind them, public photography is not a crime, and that there is no right to privacy in the public sphere
That is completely incorrect in Germany. If the person photographed is in any way the center of the picture and not just one of 20 people in the background, you have to ask for permission first.
If the person is in public, and they are incidental to the subject of the photo, permission is not required.
If you are taking a picture of a stranger, of course you have to ask their permission.
These two things are not the same.
> Hacker culture has been co-opted by a broad spectrum of folks
Seeing ourselves as better than the unwashed masses and dunking on noobs has been one of the defining characteristics of the hacker culture for as long as I remember. So was holding provocatively strong opinions about one's pet beliefs. Vi or emacs? MIT or GPL? Remember Tanenbaum dunking on Linus about how stupid his pet project was?
Granted, I wasn't around in the 1960s, but it was definitely a thing at least from the early days of Usenet.
I remember few places more toxic, than the informal IT forum of my university.
It went roughly like this, someone asking a noob question about the current course that week - and it was met by 2-5 very hostile toxic answers, variations of how stupid that person is for not knowing and how stupid for asking this way etc. And then a exhaustive, clear and friendly answer, answering exactly, what was asked.
We are literally in Hacker News where the entire spectrum is on display, all for a little up-doot.
Sure, hackers have always been an arrogant lot. But it is only this century, since the finance bro’s joined the party, that its been so, so immensely profitable ..
I think Germany is not the same as the US in regards to expectations of privacy in public when it comes to photography. Also there are plenty of signs and warnings at CCC to respect privacy and not take pics without consent…
Yes, Germany absolutely has a right to privacy in the public sphere
It's a nuanced right that has to be weighted against other rights and societal benefits. On the street it's usually easy: your picture can contain crowds or people who are there incidentally, but if you point the camera at a person you need their consent. But at a gathering like the CCC even being an identifiable member of the crowd might create issues for people, and you have to take that into account as photographer (both ethically and legally)
>It's a nuanced right
Well, having lived there I'd describe it thus: You might get shouted at for taking a harmless picture at a conference; They brag about their great "data protection" laws, and the same same day you read in the news how yet another of their universities got hacked and how some incompetent government agency leaked the sensitive private information of hundreds of thousands of their citizens. Not that anyone cares or that anyone would get punished for it. But don't you dare forget adding cookie popups to your website or trying to build a finance app without extremely invasive and questionable KYC.
Privacy-mindedness with German characteristics.
> They brag about their great "data protection" laws, and the same same day you read in the news how yet another of their universities got hacked and how some incompetent government agency leaked the sensitive private information of hundreds of thousands of their citizens.
I would claim those people from Germany who are very privacy-minded indeed have a huge distrust of these data collections exactly because they know that sooner or later someone will crack these systems.
FYI, cookie popups aren't required by law and the USA is the cause of global financial KYC. Hopefully the upcoming dedollarization fixes that.
>if you point the camera at a person you need their consent
In public spaces (streets, squares, etc.), you may generally photograph people without consent for purely private/non-commercial purposes, as long as it is not intrusive, secretive in a way that invades privacy, or shows them in a state of helplessness, intimacy, or compromise (the latter can also trigger criminal provisions under § 201a StGB).
Casual or incidental street photography is usually fine; highly targeted or harassing photography of individuals can still violate general personality rights.
However - the key rule (Recht am eigenen Bild under §§ 22–23 Kunsturhebergesetz / KUG) mainly restricts publishing or publicly displaying recognizable images of people, not merely taking them in public.
This is a distinction many Germans do not quite comprehend - but it is also the case that it’s not very well understood in the USA, too.
Disclaimer: I am a recordist, I am responsible for a few well-received (even by the original artists themselves) bootleg recordings of famous gigs, I have a strong bias towards recording public environments and a heavy aversion to any censorship, whatsoever. Given that, however, if someone asks me not to take their picture, I first give them the option of receiving a copy for their own purposes, and if they decline, I respectfully delete.
> I have a strong bias towards recording public environments and a heavy aversion to any censorship, whatsoever.
This is a balancing of legally protected interests [Güterabwägung] between privacy and censhorship. Independently of what the law may say, many Germans are strongly biased towards privacy here. Be also aware that in Germany the strong US-American concept of "free speech" does not exist; the laws that do exist are weaker.
> Given that, however, if someone asks me not to take their picture, I first give them the option of receiving a copy for their own purposes, and if they decline, I respectfully delete.
Why not ask for permission instead of objection? (even if, as you claim, the formal written law may be on your side)
> Why not ask for permission instead of objection?
Because in most cases it was never my intention to photograph a stranger - they imposed this into the conversation by contacting me - most of the time I’m taking pictures of a lovely park, or a nice flower arrangement, or the broken beer glasses in the street after Carnival - and it is only after being interrupted that I offer the option. I certainly do not take photographs of random strangers unless it somehow captures the idyl of the scene, usually.
And in many cases actually, the conversation starts off irritable but ends quite friendly, especially if the photo is a good one and the person changes their mind and wants a copy.
It is possible to pivot from annoyance to friendliness. Especially if one understands the laws and the reasoning behind them. Ask for forgiveness, not permission.
> Just remind them, public photography is not a crime, and that there is no right to privacy in the public sphere
Some people are not going to be convinced by an argument that amounts to "that's the way it is so suck it up". I suspect those people are over-represented at hacker conferences.
> Just remind them, public photography is not a crime, and that there is no right to privacy in the public sphere,
That maybe true in some places. But it's a lot more nuanced in Germany. The "easy" one is publishing a picture where individuals are key to the picture (not background noise) that is clearly protected and requires permission.
It becomes a lot more complex when just taking a picture and not publishing it. There are arguments about this already being problematic due to processing of personal data etc.
However at CCC it becomes easy again: It's private ground, not public. And then they can forbid and be done. Then you need a legal argument about you taking a picture being more important than their rights. And no, American freedom of speech or so doesn't work.
It’s a double-edged sword, and I concur that public photography should not be weaponized against the individual.
However, if I see a crime being committed, you can be sure I will be taking photo’s and dealing with the personal consequences later.
I am on the “public photography is not a crime and I don’t need anyone’s permission to record my personal experience” side of the debate, because I think that a society which does not allow free and open recording of events in the public sphere endangers itself, immensely.
I know it is incomprehensible to a lot of Germans, but without public photography being an open and uncontrolled activity, we wouldn’t have had the civil rights movement in the USA.
We wouldn’t know what was happening in Gaza every minute of the day.
There is a duty to protect this right in a free and open society - not just the American version of it - not just to record incivility and injustice, but also to promote the changes of culture in a society over time.
Would modern Germans have as much self awareness and responsibility for their state, if there were no candid photos of Sophie Scholl for future generations to refer to? A society which eschews such occurrences, endangers itself - indeed, censors itself. Germans are, after all, pretty much used to censoring themselves - but I think this has its limits and should not be tolerated.
So, I claim and exercise this activity because I think, as a responsible member of a society, it is important to hold the camera up - at times.
For sure, if someone asks me, I will comply with their wishes - I have no desire to confront a stranger with embarrassment or harassment by their own personal image - but I also think its necessary to resist the roboticism on this issue, particularly in Germany.
You are mixing a lot of things here. For one, taking a picture of a crime happening as capturing evidence overrules the right to one’s own image, as does the freedom of the press when capturing images of events of public interest.
However what is not okay, and I find that pretty reasonable, is taking a picture of someone else unaware of having their picture taken. I don’t want somebody taking a picture of me going about my life, no matter if I look goofy or wear an extremely cool outfit. You don’t get to take a picture of me, and I won’t take one of you either.
That does absolutely not imply that you couldn’t capture scenes of importance for whatever reason, and that happens literally all the time.
Germany sits on the 14th position of the press freedom index - the narrative you’re trying to construct about some kind of repression on documenting events in the public sphere is just not true.
>However what is not okay, and I find that pretty reasonable, is taking a picture of someone else unaware of having their picture taken.
That is covered by the law. Background subject? Okay. Foreground subject, picture taken covertly? Not okay. This is well understood.
>.. the narrative you’re trying to construct about some kind of repression on documenting events in the public sphere is just not true.
It’s only a matter of a generation or two, feeling entitled to privacy in a public space, until it is widespread ‘common knowledge’ that nobody can take pictures of anybody. That’s how these things work.
During a regular trip I observed some thugs harassing a woman and her dog in a public park in Berlin. I took their picture, they came to threaten me with violence and insist I delete it - I stalled long enough for the lady to make the call and I waited until the cops arrived.
The cops were grateful that there was a very definite picture of one of the thugs kicking her dog. They made the decision on the spot that I was not to be fined, and the lady thanked me. I sent her and the cops the picture, and I deleted it from my roll.
14th? Room for improvement, then.
Yes, if a crime is committed or such there is a reason. That over weighs other reason. But 99% of everyday situations aren't that.
Then there is the other side: some I dividuals have very good reason for not being tracked. Be it key witnesses to some major crime, somebody taking a clear side on israel-palastine-conflict. Etc. These are few, too, just like crime.
In the middle are the "normal" people. For them is maybe a potential minor nuisance if their spouse sees they weren't they assumed to be or when the boss sees them in a private outfit or something.
And then there is German culture, which did quite some research in how two different dictatorial regimes used surveillance and which effort they took and how innocent people got into Stasi files and into total surveillance.
And then we have the technology. Hiding cameras and mics is trivial these days. And cloud vendors doing facial recognition on all pictures uploaded (including faces far in the background - sometimes I am fascinated how well even my locally hosted immich works and identifies my brothers where I am not sure which one it was ... while it sometimes still fails) which makes that a tough balance.
I agree, it’s a tough balance, which is why both sides of the position need to be evaluated carefully.
I’m not advocating a return to stasi levels of surveillance (although the German state is already well and truly in those woods) .. but I also believe that in a free and open society, it should be possible to celebrate the humanity of the world we live in.
I have decades of photos’ of German life. It is an immensely beautiful country, from the perspective of that archive. I would hate for my kids to not have that opportunity.
> (although the German state is already well and truly in those woods) ..
There is an issue. I see the bigger issue in Big Tech. What Google (or Apple or palantir or ...) knows about me, even if I manage to fully block them on my side. They get about half the email I send (Germany has strong alternatives like gmx but many people use it etc.), they know who got me in their address book, when we talk, they see pictures of me when others sync their photos to Google photos, including Geo data, ... Compared to such collections the state is weak. And they are completely outside of our jurisdiction. For a German government I at least got a vote. Even if just one of 60 million (eligible voters on Germany on federal level)
> but I also believe that in a free and open society,
It however must also be free for the one who doesn't want to be on pictures. One's freedom is the other's unfreedom.
Everything you post on the internet is subject to Stasi-level surveillance. Nobody has a way to know the picture you take won't be posted on the internet.
FWIW, it isn't just CCC. Most previously relatively private events/groups have now acquired professional influencers ( including more recent dashcam shaming trend ), snake oil peddlers or clout chasers. We just had midwest vintage computer expo here and while some things did get better, some things parent said immediately triggered the comparison.
I don’t really understand what you’re saying, could you expand on it? MWVCE is a private event, the organizers can set the policy at the door - are you saying that folks were not willing to comply with the policies?
What triggered the comparison, specifically?
What I am saying that the cultural zeitgeist has changed sufficiently that it is very, very different from the one of only 20-30 back. Way back when I was but a wee lad, we didn't go around taking pictures of strangers for public entertainment almost regardless of public facing policies regarding said strangers. It is a very different frame of mind. I think I can officially say farewell to that world.
Do you believe in the preservation of history and culture for the benefit of the future?
I don’t take pictures of random strangers for entertainment - I take pictures of the beautiful, open, public spaces I visit, which happen to have people in them.
The notion that a society should not be free and open in this regard is, frankly, repressive.
These days we automatically blur people faces so there is no reason we can't have both
You know, I kinda used to be with you until about few years ago we went to a park in Utah, where, and I swear this is true, a line of influencers were waiting to pose for a specific landmark to preen at camera for their allotted time. In other words, I no longer care about repressive. I will even go as far as to say that some of this silliness has to be repressed.
Couldn’t disagree with you more. Do you want to live in a free and open society or not?
Where does your march to the bottom end? We are no longer allowed to take photo’s of our government without permission, perhaps?
panopticon == free and open society?
I want the freedom to not be surveilled for daring to go out in public. Get off your high horse.
Well in so doing you’re impinging on others freedoms, and your horse is just as uppity.
It’s in the name: public. You cannot prevent me from looking at you, nor memorizing every single detail about you, no matter how you whine.
If you want privacy, create it. The public world belongs to everyone..
It seems like you were born in the wrong era. You would have made for a wonderful Stasi agent, comrade.
As someone who also attended (both as a table and speaker) this last VCF Midwest. The biggest problem that event has is the base mercantilism.
If I'm attending that event, I want to see cool machines doing cool things and hear the stories and things people love about them.
I don't wanna see a bunch of AI slop coffee mugs and tee shirts of various old video game consoles taking up an entire fucking wall
As for mercantilism, I must confess I did buy some of those.. for my kid I swear!
> it was acceptable, not so long ago, to spy on ones neighbors.
It'still acceptable by the way. I had a guy whom I swear I have seen for the first and last time, allegedly my neighbour, call me by my first name and comment on my garbage-separating habits
Yes indeed, there is an undercurrent of this culture still lurking in the shadows.
I think it’s a consequence of the architecture, personally.
Germans aren’t actually used to having a lot of privacy - I often cringe when I hear my neighbor flush their toilet, and I live in an ‘innenhof’ surrounded by the noisy lives of a vast array of cultures, yelling at each other and having sex and calling their kids back in from the yards for dinner. We all live on top of each other, and for some people this is reason enough to snoop.
>garbage-separating habits
This is a make or break issue for a lot of Germans, it’s true. I personally believe its because the maintenance costs of the apartment/communal living waste admin are borne by all tenants, so this gives folks the idea that they have a ‘right’ to police each other over it.
I’ve learned my own quirks over the years, living in DACH states. I recently found myself seriously judging people by the nature and form - and indeed, strategic availability - of the house shoe spoon. If there isn’t one, you’re about to enter the house of a heathen. If there is one, but it’s small, a sadist. If it’s a long one, strategically placed right by the spot you’re expected to deposit your shoes - a mensch. If it’s wooden, a hippy mensch. If it’s metal, a right-wing mensch.
I’m sorry, Oida, I can’t help it. The shoe spoon is a social indicator! (Edit: I’m joking, a metal shoe spoon doesn’t make you a fascist - its more of a mental game I play while taking off my shoes at a new friends’ house, and I do have to say I am correcting myself on this habit of pigeon holing on the basis of the nature of ones shoe spoon, although I find it amusing as a mental game I do recognize its a prejudice I’m forming in my old age…)
Being intrusive is one thing. But this guy apparently waited until I was bringing out my garbage and go back, rushed to the paper bin to see my name and checked the quality, all without me seeing him, repeatedly, and I believe he did that with other neighbours too. That's basically a second job
In a life of comfort, the mind makes its own travails.
It sounds like a quote? If not: beautifully put
I’ve heard it around in various forms, but this is my version. Thanks.
Ugh yeah I'd hate that. Here the bins are just in the street. And nothing is personalized. People do watch what you put in but more to see if there's something valuable.
German here. I never thought this was about privacy, but there is definitely a tendency to follow the rules because they are The Rules regardless of how much sense they make - and then judge others by it, or go into Cover Your Ass mode because you fear to be judged yourself.
> If it’s a long one, strategically placed right by the spot you’re expected to deposit your shoes - a mensch. If it’s wooden, a hippy mensch. If it’s metal, a right-wing mensch.
I got a long one, made of metal, but I never knew it makes you right-wing! I just bought it because it's by far the most sturdy one available and I absolutely can't stand the plastic (or small) ones.
It doesn’t actually make you right-wing, I’m just kidding around - as someone who has broken more than my fair share of ethically sourced bamboo shoe spoons, now replaced with a metal one, I am fully taking the piss.
But, it’s more that I caught myself formulating this opinion after being in a DACH culture for some time. I think this is DACH’ness, seeping into my mindset ..