> In the United States [..] consent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places and publish those photos. Hence, unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained) [..]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_ide...
Try getting away from Wiki and read your local laws. PyCon happend in California, which is so ubersensitive about privacy that even call centers and debt collectors have to inform you and recieve consent to record your conversations.
Having been a vidographer and photographer for bands in and around California, it's a pain in the ass all the legal forms and releases you need to obtain in order to publish the likeness of someone. There's a reason "extras" are paid in California.
First, for taking his photo without consent, then turning around and using it in an official disciplinary capacity - totally against the law. Whatever his wages were, she may be liable for paying him out of her pocket as a result.
Second, she even admitted here in this thread - she took something as being sexual that totally wasnt - so she's made up her mind that this was offensive and inappropriate. Shame on her, and I do truly hope that she joins the ranks of unemployed soon for her actions (turnabout is fair play after all, arent we trying for equality?)
Lastly, she admits in her blog post that they were talking amongst themselves and she overheard something and decided arbitrarily and without invitation to join the conversation. Having done so, it's also your responsibility, not the trade show organizers, to attempt to resolve the situation which she clearly refused to and even refuses to acknowledge - she should have asked them to knock it off.
Instead, she chose to rally the troops instead of talking with authorities directly and skip the step of asking them to knock it off - it's only harassing if they persist.
But paying extras sounds like publishing likenesses in commercial work, which is (AFAIK) usually under a different part of law than publishing noncommercial photos.
And recording conversations on the phone is nothing to do with anything pictorial, that comes under telephony and wiretapping laws.
And "official disciplinary capacity"? What does that mean? What office was she holding what discipline did she decide on?
Harrasment? Overhearing? Troops rallying? Responsibility to talk? All irrelevant to picture publishing, I suspect.
"Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy."
It was immoral of her to publish that photo, but not illegal.
- Source: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
That's about the USA, which is where they were, but I'd be hard pushed to see a public conference as a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy even in a country with no law about photographic privacy.