[Noisebridge-discuss] missing IBM model M keyboard from my shelf

John Ellis neurofog at gmail.com
Sun Sep 18 03:26:35 UTC 2011


At Hacker Dojo, they used to have a small number of "staff" who would
open the door, and in their absence, nobody could get in. As far as I
know, currently 60-day+ members can open the door, but not guests or
shorter term members.

I may be mistaken, but apparently this worked reasonably well.

John

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jonathan Lassoff wrote, On 2011-09-17 15:41:
>>> > I'm not for excluding everyone by default, but I think we should meet
>>> > with
>>> > and get to know total strangers before just granting them total and
>>> > free
>>> > access by default.
>>>
>>> Folks asking for lock down should maybe work towards making sure every
>>> single person being let into the space is welcomed, this will solve most
>>> of the problems brought up in this thread.
>>
>> In an ideal world, this could work. But, I think it falls down in
>> practice.
>
> 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
>
> But anyway, these options are certainly *possible*.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/socialengineering
>
> 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.
>
> I put everything that everybody mentioned here into the table at
> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/MissingStuff
> If you have extra info on that stuff, like dates or places, please put it in
> there too.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> d.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>> I don't think this is fair for the volunteers that take this on. What if
>> they want to work uninterrupted for a while?
>> 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.
>> 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.)
>> --j
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list