[Noisebridge-discuss] Deep Crack

Jacob Appelbaum jacob at appelbaum.net
Thu Oct 8 06:51:59 UTC 2009


Ani Niow wrote:
> Wait, is this going to be a personal project of yours that just happens to
> be at Noisebridge or is this for all of Noisebridge (minus US citizens) to
> take part in? You also mentioned that we would not have ownership of it, so
> what exactly does that mean? The EFF owns it but we're free to use it? This
> is sounding awfully like a loan which we've discussed time and time again
> that we do not accept.

John actually owns the device and he's seemingly really happy that I
have an interest in the device, the history and want to put it to use.
It's a project at Noisebridge that I want to lead that requires special
equipment. I don't personally have any restrictions on this group, I
guess that people who have an interest will help and those that don't
won't involve themselves unless they change their mind?

> Comparing this to Rachel's sewing machine I do not believe is fair, no one
> is restricted from using a sewing machine, citizenship or not, it does not
> use enough power to justify people paying separately for it outright nor
> does it take up nearly as much space as Deep Crack would. This is reminding
> me more of the DIYbio fridge that was brought in those many months ago which
> violated the unofficial "what the fuck are you thinking, please use common
> sense clause".
> 

I think it's a fair comparison to Rachel's sewing machine. If Deep Crack
fit on my shelf, it wouldn't be an issue, right? Additionally, I believe
the power considerations are easy to calculate and we can easily track,
offset and pay for extreme power usage.

I don't think it's fair to compare this to the DIYbio fridge fiasco. I
am a member. Additionally, I remember us applauding John when he said
he'd bring the device into the space for use.

> Considering the size, power and potential liability issues this brings up,
> why was something like this not brought up for consensus? I checked the
> notes and there was discussion about it last meeting and a fair amount of
> people voiced these concerns on the mailing list. It doesn't seem to make
> much sense to simply bring it over all these people's concerns *before* they
> get sorted out.

I think that perhaps you're correct. I remember when John first offered
this to me at Noisebridge many months ago. It occurs to me that the
applause at that specific meeting wasn't consent. I didn't really even
consider that I needed group consent to do a project.

Best,
Jake

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 155 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091007/379b6b36/attachment-0003.sig>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list