[Noisebridge-discuss] Advisory about recent thefts at Noisebridge.
aestetix at gmail.com
Sun Jul 10 13:11:17 UTC 2011
So, uh, besides the other privacy concerns... what makes you think that if
someone will randomly "steal" a laptop, they won't also steal surveillance
equipment you set up? I imagine there's an off switch somewhere on the
camera, even if it's a power button, and I also imagine that taping a piece
of black paper over the camera lens would make any surveillance attempts
futile. Or, if "these people" are as paranoid as it sounds, what's to stop
them from clipping the cables connecting things together?
I'm not saying don't do it, because I believe people should do things.
However, I also believe in watching the watchers, and hackers have a natural
inclination to question people who tell them what they are "supposed" to do.
I assume that if you were to install cameras, there would be a clear sign
indicating where they are and why they are there, and anyone who wanted to
see how they work, or hack them, would have access to them? Also, do you
plan on having good explanations for why they are there for new people when
you point them out on the tour?
I am all in favor of using kindness and communication to thwart people
behaving badly. I am not in favor of using technical hacks to solve social
problems. I point to the poorly implemented RFID passport, expensive body
scanners in the TSA, and proposals for a national ID as evidence of this. I
think that when people see problems, they look see how they can solve it
using their available skillsets. With Noisebridge, most people are highly
technical, so it seems natural to jump to trying a technical solution to
solve a problem. However, in this case, I don't really see a positive
outcome from that approach.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Corey McGuire <coreyfro at coreyfro.com>
> > Is there a problem with just putting up cameras other than the obvious
> > "oooOOOOOOoooo, lets hack that!" or the "waaaaaaah! I'm a 1337 hax0r, I
> > don't WANNNA be on camera!"
> There are probably legitimate reasons to not want to be filmed, and I
> wouldn't want to alienate anyone that really feels like they need to
> hide. I think as long as it was explicit where cameras are mounted and
> what they're trained on, they can be avoided.
> > Under California law, unless there is an expectation of privacy (and with
> > what I've seen happen on the couches at noisebridge, there isn't) it's OK
> > post cameras.
> > I would be 100% fine with cameras...especially if we rig them to detect
> > awesome as it happens...like make beacons that alert the camera system
> > it's time to increase the frame rate and resolution of the camera because
> > we're about to do something that needs to be documented for Make Benefit
> > Glorious Nation of Noisebridge
> I'm totally down more more security systems, cameras included.
> However, I think we ought to at least build in some protections
> against abuse, like not logging video for more than X days, making two
> people log in to extract video, etc.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss