<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Jonathan Lassoff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jof@thejof.com" target="_blank">jof@thejof.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div></div><div>On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Rubin Abdi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rubin@starset.net" target="_blank">rubin@starset.net</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><div></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Jonathan Lassoff wrote, On 2011-09-17 15:41:<br>
<div>> I'm not for excluding everyone by default, but I think we should meet with<br>
> and get to know total strangers before just granting them total and free<br>
> access by default.<br>
<br>
</div>Folks asking for lock down should maybe work towards making sure every<br>
single person being let into the space is welcomed, this will solve most<br>
of the problems brought up in this thread.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div><div>In an ideal world, this could work. But, I think it falls down in practice.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>Well, I think these things are equally impractical: locking down the place either requires some sort of 24/7 do-acratic police force, or a consensus agreement and a lot of pre-planning, neither of which I see anyone stepping forward to manage anytime soon. Even if you managed to persuade everyone that this was the way to go, I can't work out any good way of stopping people just letting people in. And of course the thieves COULD BE INSIDE THE HACKERSPACE WITH YOU<br>
<br>But anyway, these options are certainly *possible*.<br><br>I think more doable in the short-term are a couple of tech-solutions-to-social-problem possibilities: I like Jake's RFID system for those who want to take advantage of it (apart from anything else, it's a project for the LED screen). I would like to help out with that.<br>
<br>I also, honestly, think that there are some creative, privacy-protective ways of monitoring behaviour that we can come up with. The "oh someone will just tear down cameras" meme might be true, but it seems to be something people say rather than actively test, and there's certainly no consensus ban on the use of such tools. I don't mind messing around with some sinister orwellian models, and maybe coming up with some good ways to evolve such tools in the place that is protective of general privacy (or alternatively encourage people to come up with more and more ingenious ways to circumvent the surveillance). I would like to help out with those too.<br>
<br>Both of these solutions fall under the socialengineering group's enthusiasms, so if somebody wants to start on them, they should join that list and come to those meetings to talk enthusiastically about it:<br><a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/socialengineering">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/socialengineering</a><br>
<br>I also think, though, that it's really hard to work out what's working and what's not, without a baseline. I don't think anyone's making up that they've lost stuff in the space, but I would have no idea where to start in determining whether it's getting worse, or how we would know if we've fixed the problem. <br>
<br>I put everything that everybody mentioned here into the table at <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/MissingStuff">https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/MissingStuff</a> <br>If you have extra info on that stuff, like dates or places, please put it in there too.<br>
<br>If you've lost stuff that you think might have been deliberately "disappeared", I strongly encourage you to add it to that list. Like the electricity bill, it behooves us to actually measure the problem we're trying to solve, to see whether we're actually solving it.<br>
<br>I realize that this might seem incredibly anal and a bit heartless of me, but if stuff is going missing, it's not evaporating of its own accord. The way things like this get solved is investigation and elimination of possibilities, not making up a rule that says "no more thieves allowed after 10PM" or exhortations for everyone to be more excelli-vigilant or something. <br>
<br>I also realise that this probably seems very plodding and not instantly fixing the problem. But actually being plodding and slowly getting somewhere is something we need to do, rather than run around suggesting things, and then not following through because they take more than 10 minutes to pull of.<br>
<br>d.<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>The downside (totally my opinion), is that it requires the *constant* vigilance, at all hours of the day. It places the burden of security and screening strangers on a minority of people that feel engaged and and outgoing enough to want to greet people and observe their behavior to determine if they're a problem or not.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I don't think this is fair for the volunteers that take this on. What if they want to work uninterrupted for a while?</div><div>I feel like I should be greeting people while I'm a the space, but I'd much rather not have to worry about who's coming and going.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I feel like we've been going down this road for a while, and it's not working (things are missing, belligerent strangers are wandering in and harassing people, etc.)</div><div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>
--j</div>
</font></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>