[Noisebridge-discuss] Access control and the DJ booth

[Sai Emrys]

IMO: Locks are a good idea to protect some chunks of our stuff,
especially when unvetted and inebriated people are around.

I even think that non-anonymous access control would be a good idea
for some of it. Psuedonymity is fine (if we know who those people
are), but total anonymity seems to result in people being jackasses at
a rate proportional to the size of the anonymous group. Psuedonymity
seems, to me, to sufficiently address privacy concerns while allowing
a web of trust model to operate effectively.

I disagree with the attitude some folk (e.g. Jacob, Rubin, Shannon)
seem to have that *everything* in the space ought to be hackable.

However, I don't see that disagreement as reason to get in screaming
matches with e-peens and blocking privileges as cudgels. Surely we
could find a less dogmatic compromise position that is acceptable to
all?

I agree that hacking things is great and we should have lots of stuff
to hack and even we should prefer to have stuff donated with no
strings attached so we can hack it. But I don't agree that that should
be insisted upon even when people want to express reasonable
boundaries on their stuff when we *don't* have that kind of less
restricted option.

And I really dislike this tendency by the aforementioned people to
a) talk about their opinions as if they are representative of the
entire group, and
b) consider their opinions as dogmatic Truths that are not subject to
compromise and consensus like everyone else's

This tendency towards dogmatic vetoes seriously turns me off.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
> As I've heard, it wasn't a very popular idea. I can see by counting the
> number of times you've said "I" in the above paragraph that you're not
> in good company.

I happen to think that using I-statements is the mark of *good*
communication, not of bad. It ensures that he is speaking accurately
of his own beliefs, rather than using a nebulous "we" to pump them up.

If others agree or disagree with you, those people are free to speak
for themselves.

> You disregarded my previous privacy concerns and
> I simply dropped it because you're unreasonable.

Complaining about being disregarded is reasonable. Calling someone
unreasonable because of it, isn't. Relax a bit.

> If it's an accident, great. If it's malicious, it's not even worth
> trying to put in these kinds of controls. A slightly drunk adversary
> with no skill could subvert a magnetic sensor in the dj booth.

That's an argument for a better lock, not for none.

> I'd just like to stop for a moment and clarify something. If you have
> expensive toys that you don't want to share with everyone at Noisebridge
> and it doesn't fit on your shelf, please take your toys home when you
> leave.

This implies that you might think that stuff left on one's personal
shelf is *not* up for anyone who likes it to hack and/or destroy... is
that accurate?

> On top of the totally anti-social and propertarian attitude, ...

Calling it "anti-social and propertarian" strikes me as very hostile.

> If you want - donate the equipment and let go of your attachments. If
> you don't want to do so, someone else probably will when the equipment
> is really needed.

This strikes me as dogmatic. Why not accept reasonable boundaries
until such a boundary-free donation arrives?

I see no problem with seeking them, just with your attitude that it's
the only acceptable form.

> I do care and I don't want a gate. I certainly don't want a keyed,
> alarmed, monitored, access logging system in place.

Noted that you don't want it. But unless you're either voting (which
you disapprove of) or relying solely on your social authority (which
you also disapprove of), that's not a very persuasive statement.

Dr Jesus gave support for his suggestions, saying why he thought they
were necessary and useful. Andy did likewise with his disagreement.

Could you give an equally reasonable, non-ranty description of why you
believe it'd be a bad thing, and what an alternate approach would be?

For that matter: can you find a compromise position that maybe you're
not 100% ideologically in agreement with but is good enough for both
of you?

> Your ideas do not interest me and I do not wish to subscribe to your
> propertarian value system as you want to apply it to Noisebridge.
> Noisebridge isn't your personal police state playground.

Your dogma does not interest *me*. And it seriously does not appear to
me to be within the ethic of a *consensus* driven process.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:
> Consider this a block on forming any sort of consensus on this
> implementation or any others having to do with monitoring systems in the
> space or segregated sections to certain members.

This again seems to me to be directly contrary to the ethic of
consensus-building.

> Again for the third time tonight, this was brought up at one of our
> first meetings and we reached consensus, if it's not on your shelf or in
> your immediate vicinity (like a laptop) then it's a donation and not
> your property anymore..

First off, consensus can change. Just because something was decided
once does not mean it can never be brought up again.

Second, Noisebridge does not have the right to change state law, which
is what governs property rights. We don't get to take and/or destroy
someone's stuff just because it's left in our space.

If you want Noisebridge to say "we will only accept donations with no
strings attached" or "nothing may be stored in the space unless it is
a donation", that's different. But the law requires you to give owners
of stuff who had a reasonable expectation of being able to put it
somewhere reasonable notification before you remove it from the space.
And it doesn't allow you to simply destroy stuff that's on your
property.

You may or may not agree with that law, but that's another matter entirely.

- Sai