[SeanDav]

Since when did it become ok to vilify someone for a private conversation? A private conversation in a public area is still private. This woman was guilty of listening to a private conversation, taking some sort of offence and then going out of her way to publicly shame them. Anyone trying to defend her is not thinking very clearly.

If you look at her own posting history she is guilty of off-colour jokes and downright racist comments. The whole thing smacks of hypocrisy and self publication.

[mtrimpe]

It's not a private conversation.

I can't even ignore the conversation of annoying people three seats down in the train. When people in the seat behind me will start talking during a conference there would be no way for me not to listen to their conversation.

[SeanDav]

Just because you have good hearing and/or are incapable of focusing on something else does not make the conversation less private.

A private conversation is one that is intended to occur only between the parties involved. Your being able to hear it or not is irrelevant if the intention and expectation was that the conversation is meant to be between specific parties.

I understand this is not completely black and white, but fail to understand why anyone should take offence at a conversation they were not meant to be a part of and where they don't understand the history and social dynamics of the people involved in the conversation.

I can think of all kinds of situations where a private conversation, if overheard and taken out of context could be devastating to those involved.

[btilly]

According to her account, their initial jokes were based off of a conversation that she was directly involved in. Based on that fact, in her position I would not have considered their conversation private.

Furthermore they continued their discussion while the presenter was talking. That right there is going to annoy people around them, even if they had the most innocent conversation in the world. Which they weren't. In fact her description left me with the impression that she thought they were specifically joking about her.

Basic scenario. Off color jokes starting off of your conversation, that you feel are directed at you, by random strangers in a public space. I can understand her getting upset by that. She may have been mistaken in her impressions, but her unfortunate emotional reaction is understandable to me.

[jlgreco]

I can't help but feel that, if she had thought the comments were about her, her response would have been a great deal more.. pointed.

[EvanKelly]

You also can't ignore the history and social dynamics of women at tech conferences. There's a sordid history of misogyny at these things.

I remember just last year reading horrible accounts from either blackhat or defcon (can't remember which). I understand PyCon is almost certainly of a different breed, but the history can't be overlooked in this situation.

[LockeWatts]

It was Defcon, but I can't see how what happened there is any way related to what happened here.

"People have treated women badly at tech conferences before, thus it's perfectly valid to overreact and ruin the career of a guy who did nothing wrong"

What?

[EvanKelly]

You're putting words in my mouth.

Just as Adria didn't know the history of the guys behind her (for example, the nature of the forking joke), those guys need to understand that while no one else may have been actively participating in their conversation, their talk can still effect those around them.

I absolutely do not comprehend how so many posters here can place the blame firmly on one side or the other for how things transpired. Neither side handled this perfectly, failure to acknowledge that someone could hold a differing view than you on what is "offensive" or "sexist" or an overreaction is a very close-minded stance to take (I'm not speaking to you particularly on this, since I haven't looked at your other posts)

[LockeWatts]

>You're putting words in my mouth.

Not really. I'm rephrasing your argument to be more blunt. What I said was definitely the spirit of your post.

>Just as Adria didn't know the history of the guys behind her (for example, the nature of the forking joke)

She didn't need to, it was none of her business.

>those guys need to understand that while no one else may have been actively participating in their conversation, their talk can still effect those around them.

Still has nothing to do with Defcon.

>I absolutely do not comprehend how so many posters here can place the blame firmly on one side or the other for how things transpired. Neither side handled this perfectly, failure to acknowledge that someone could hold a differing view than you on what is "offensive" or "sexist" or an overreaction is a very close-minded stance to take (I'm not speaking to you particularly on this, since I haven't looked at your other posts)

I just think your argument was phallacious, and was pointing out why. Also, see what I did there?

[niggler]

"A private conversation is one that is intended to occur only between the parties involved."

What are your thoughts on the Romney 47% remark? (that was recorded by a bartender at the event)

[LockeWatts]

The ideas behind libel and slander laws apply here. The larger your public profile, the less protection you have from libel and slander.

Mr. Romney was saying politically relevant things at a politically relevant dinner while running for a political office. The recording was perfectly legal and I'd consider moral. The people have the right to know the truth about the politicians they're voting on.

[donaq]

I don't pay much attention to American politics, but Romney was running for public office. Arguably the most powerful political role in the world, which makes his private opinions very relevant to everyone.

[pekk]

If you run for public office and believe that everyone who [correction: doesn't] vote for you is sub-human, that is a reliable indicator of how you will treat the people who didn't vote for you.

[jlgreco]

If you spoke up in that conversation on the train, do you think you would normally be well received? No. Although you could technically hear it, it was nevertheless a private conversation.

I suspect there is probably an element of culture at play here. Having spent a good deal of time in cities, I see absolutely no connection between being able to overhear a conversation, and that conversation not being private. In fact, I have internalized this such that it is actually difficult for me to pay attention to private conversations that I can hear. In return I expect, and in practice receive, the same courtesy.

I wager that many people who think that "if I can hear it, it isn't private" have not spent much time in situations where private conversations would become impossible by that logic. Learning social boundaries where physical boundaries do not exist is a skill that could easily go un-exercised.

[RougeFemme]

I don't believe that "if I can hear it, it isn't private". On the other hand, if I'm saying something that I know could be overheard and offensive, I usually choose my words a little more carefully, especially when I will be in close proximity to others for a while - like when I'm sitting at a conference, in a movie theater, etc. On the third hand, I recognize that everyone's filter is calibrated a little differently and that some people have no filters - which is why we have written codes of conduct. Yes, learning social boundaries is a skill that could go un-exercised - which is another reason for the codes of conduct.

[surge]

Ever seen Steve Hughes on being offended? If you're offended, so what, nothing happens. If we all walk on egg shells because any kind of discourse might offend someone, you'd suck the air out of the room.

Seriously, by the rules at PyCon, I'd be afraid to have any conversation for fear I might say something off hand, get publicly shamed for it and fired for it before having a chance to state my case for something that could have been taken out of context or doesn't offend the audience I was speaking to.

No one else is responsible for your emotional state. If someone is intentionally trying to antagonize you that's one thing, but no one should care if you're offended by something they might have said when they are not speaking to you.

[jlgreco]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. I merely am voicing a point of view to counter those who seem to find it inconceivable that these people thought they were engaging in private conversation. I find it highly probable that they, while fully aware of the fact that they were in a mildly dense crowd, considered themselves to be having a private conversation.

[belorn]

I know crackers have the same issue. They can't help not to look when people freely type their passwords in front of them during conferences. How can they not look memorize that password? And from there to use it or post it on twitter is just a small step right?

Admins has the same problems. A co-worker ask them for help fixing their emails, and the content of those email are just there. How can they not see the conversation about sexual diseases being present in the inbox. And from there to complain on twitter about it is just a small step.

Polite behavior is to sometimes not look/listen/read even if its being done right in front of you. At least one should have the decency of not go out and post it on twitter, even if one is "offended" by what you saw/heard.

[freehunter]

People use POP email at work all the time. I can see their plaintext passwords coming through the network monitor (which it's my job to review), and I've seen some patently offensive passwords being used. This brings up two of your points: First, I ignore the fact that I can see their username and password. The responsible thing to do is to completely forget that you can see it. I have no business with their login information. I'm completely aware that the only thing I can do with this information will cause damage to myself and to the person who unwittingly gave me this information. Secondly, I ignore the words on the screen. Because it's not something that was designed for me to see in the first place.

[rbanffy]

Shouldn't you advise them to use POP over SSL?

[freehunter]

We can advise them to use whatever we want, the trick is getting them to listen. Our corporate email disallows POP, but we aren't in the business of blocking their personal email on our non-secure network.

[surge]

It's a personal conversation then, in either case, its NOYB. Unless he was using actual obscene words, I don't get it. She can't be offended by behavior she herself publicly broadcasts on twitter to anyone who follows or reads her feed. A conversation is the same way, you can't help who chooses to sit next to you and eavesdrops on your conversation.

[kbar13]

If someone intercepted an email you sent to your friend and your friend only, would that email be considered public communication?

[EthanHeilman]

Perhaps irrelevant counterexamples:

>Since when did it become ok to vilify someone for a private conversation?

* Having a private conversation during a movie or play is generally considered the action of the worse sort of villain.

* Plenty of people have been vilified and sent to jail on the basis of statements made privately.

* Just because something is private doesn't mean it isn't disruptive to people within earshot.

>A private conversation in a public area is still private.

* You don't generate a cone of silence by addressing a statement to a particular person. It is likely that people around you can still hear you.

* Furthermore in a public venue you have no expectation of privacy.

[bad_user]

> Just because something is private doesn't mean it isn't disruptive to people within earshot

Just because something is disrupting people's ears, that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Ultimately it becomes a freedom of speech issue.

The joke wasn't sexist. Sexist jokes offend me too. But am I supposed to stop making sexual jokes now because somebody around me might get offended? Sorry, but fuck off and don't listen if you're a sensitive bitch.

[LockeWatts]

>* You don't generate a cone of silence by addressing a statement to a particular person. It is likely that people around you can still hear you.

And... so what? If I walk through a cafeteria and someone says something I don't like while chatting with their friends, I have the right to get them fired over it? I don't understand how people are advocating that.

[donohoe]

  The whole thing smacks of hypocrisy and self publication

I don't think so. I think she has just made a mistake.

[HarryHirsch]

No. Looking at her Linkedin profile the person is a women-in-tech evangelist. This incident - especially posting the photo of the offenders on Twitter and the subsequent penis joke - served to make the news to give her visibility. The PyCon code of conduct serves to provide a pleasant atmosphere at the conference, it isn't a weapon or a means to make the news.

[SallySinep]

Fabrication of evidence -- referring specifically to the "forking" joke that wasn't -- goes well outside the bounds of making a simple "mistake."

[dopamean]

This is not true. Any conversation had in a place where it could easily be overheard by others is legally not a private conversation. Even if it was had between a client and an attorney the privilege that would normally exist would not.

[jlgreco]

I don't see how legal realities are at all relevant here. What is relevant is social expectation.

[dopamean]

Who on earth has a social expectation of privacy when they are talking in a room full of people with whom they are in very close proximity.

[jlgreco]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5416169

[dopamean]

Alright, next time I'm out somewhere and I hear someone making racist jokes or swearing in front my by little brother I wont say anything. I'll tell my brother we have to respect their social expectation of privacy.

[jlgreco]

Do you expect me to say that's a bad idea? We must have some serious cultural differences because as far as I am concerned, ignoring it and minding your own business are the only reasonable actions in such a situation. How can you possibly live your life confronting every stranger you find objectionable?

If for you privacy only exists when invading it is physically impossible, then can you really say that you have a concept of "respecting one's privacy" at all? It would be more accurate to say that you "respect the acoustical properties of walls".

[vidarh]

There's a vast difference between asking people to consider the other people within earshot, and publicly shaming them.