[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: sleeping in turing

Ronald Cotoni setient at gmail.com
Tue Jan 15 18:51:10 UTC 2013


I am with Hep here.  Hep knows her photography and are we really talking
about people living at noisebridge?  There have been at least 5 threads
that I know of on this topic and still 0 actual solutions.  We are so
smart, we are stupid.  Does anyone want to actually fix this problem?  I am
up for creative solutions to this social/technical issue.   I would be
willing to meet every day until we have a solid solution to this and I
think noisebridge needs to do this (part of pulling it's collective head
from it's collective butt).  I do mean EVERY day with people who want to
actually solve this problem.


On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:02 AM, hep <dis at gruntle.org> wrote:

> I am a professional photographer and do actually know CA law. Unless the
> photographer is in your face and actually has touched you (the assault and
> battery portion of the interaction) you don't actually have a leg to stand
> on. Someone photographing you from across a room is not at all the same as
> a paparazzi in your face after having followed you for miles, pushing up on
> you. And furthermore, often those paparazzi are in fact awarded damages and
> successfully push assault charges against those people who break their
> cameras (I know and occasionally work with a lot of people who otherwise
> work as paparazzi and other types of investigative journalists who push the
> boundaries of public photography vs. stalking.) So your "some tv news
> cameramen i talked to" advice goes directly in the face of the professional
> advice and knowledge I have learned from our legal team and other
> professional colleagues.
>
> Secondly: noisebridge isn't at all like peet's, which is private property
> that provides a for money service to the public. Peet's is not actually
> public space, because you are required to purchase goods or services in
> order to use their space. This means you need permission to photograph
> anything that is not in public view on the premises (ie i can still stand
> outside on the sidewalk and shoot through the windows all I want, but if I
> want to photograph inside I would need permission.) Noisebridge is much
> more like the lobby of a corporate building, a private property which is
> held as a private lease, but is open as public access space without fees or
> money changing hands. These are two very different entities legally
> speaking as far as photography goes. The way the judge will view it is if
> the property is open to the public at large without needing a payment of a
> sorts (either via goods or services) to access it, if this is true, then it
> is considered public space (regardless of it's other status as using a
> privately held lease) and photography is permitted in there. This is why
> journalists are allowed to follow people into office building lobbies, but
> then cannot follow into the offices of people (because those offices are
> not open to the public, and therefore are not public space. tho they could
> shoot through any open doors or windows) The corollary to this of course
> being that if you don't like someone photographing, if you have the
> authority in that space you could always ask them to leave, however you
> cannot actually stop them from taking pictures or demand they remove/delete
> the images from their drives. This has held up in court repeatedly,
> including repeatedly in SF down at 555 California (where a lot of
> politicians and other famous sf people have offices) in their public
> square/lobby area. The only thing you aren't in fact allowed to photograph
> in public are things which violate other kinds of privacy, for instance
> someone's pin number. If someone was able to prove that you photoed or
> videoed their pin number that is considered a breach of privacy regardless
> of whether it happened in public (and this is how those people who lay out
> pinhole cameras over ATMs get tagged.) The same for trying to photo
> someone's weiner in a public restroom (topical reference.)
>
> Now, all of this is hypothetical at best, but I am pretty solid on the
> viewpoint that if i were to photograph you at Noisebridge, and you broke my
> camera, the judge would absolutely award me for damages and knock you for
> destruction of property, and potentially assault if you actually grabbed it
> out of my hands.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Gopiballava Flaherty <
> gopiballava at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, there are situations in which a person with a camera could be a
>> legitimate threat. But your initial description was not one of those
>> situations. The scenario you described could easily occur without the
>> photographer even knowing they were doing something wrong. Your invitation
>> said it was ok to vandalize *anybody's* equipment for taking a photo. How
>> many visitors to NB know about the no photo rule?
>>
>> Your claim about the right to stand your ground is in conflict with what
>> I learned in class in PA, but it is possible that CA law is different. In
>> most cases when you are not in your house you have a duty to retreat if you
>> can do so safely. The duty to retreat is normally conditional on knowing
>> that you can do so in complete safety to yourself and others. That's a high
>> standard and probably one that can't be met when you're in a room with
>> somebody at NB. Retreat in a small room makes no sense.
>>
>> Celebrities do get in trouble for destroying cameras:
>>
>> http://www.epagini.com/2010/05/sean-penn-got-3-years-probation/
>>
>>
>> http://cdn.mediatakeout.com/26565/breaking-news-kanye-arrested-for-fighting-with-paparazzi.html
>>
>> What you also probably don't hear about is when a celebrity smashes a
>> camera, and then their publicist calls the photographer and offers to take
>> them on a camera shopping trip in exchange for no police report. I don't
>> actually know how often that happens but it seems like a likely scenario.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> gopi at iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2013, at 18:10, maestro <maestro415 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> *an excellent and non-antagonistic/non-judgemental/non-drama response
>> with references...
>>
>> *a caveat to your info is that "when accosted by a device of any nature
>> in someone's hand(s) or on their person it can be considered a weapon
>> and/or mode of threatening the security of your person" and you have the
>> un-alienable right to stand your ground...
>>
>> *a really good example of this is the tv 'news' cameramen that have told
>> me honestly and it has been backed up by a couple judges that if they get
>> right in someone's face with their camera the person can totally throw the
>> camera down without prejudice or liability...
>> but of course they rely on most not knowing this and sometimes consider
>> the shot(s) worth the damage since they don't pay for it anyway...
>>
>> *in other cases judges rarely rule against someone being stalked by
>> individuals or paparazzi and there have been many cases of paparazzi's gear
>> being 'disabled' at no liability to the defendant(s)...
>>
>> *yes, there is a 'grey area' about noisebridge as the public is welcome
>> to come in BUT it is a privately held lease with a core private membership
>> on private property sooo...
>> it makes it 'technically' not public (like peet's coffee et.al)
>> think of it like a park on private property...
>>
>> at the end of the day,
>> beings secretly photographing people and seeking to create name lists is
>> the total polar opposite of what NB is all about and makes A LOT of beings
>> that would normally come by and do/share/create kewl things...NOT.
>> but it does reflect the agenda of what's going on across OUR country and
>> the desire to manifest a stazi-like environment...
>>
>> in the past there were fucked up trolls doing/trying to do  facial
>> recognition(leo'esque) on beings at the space...
>>
>> and someone invited a federal agent(that showed their badge) in at the
>> bottom door(with no warrant), gave them a tour, offered them cookies and
>> coffee, and...
>>
>>
>>
>> message ends
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:17 PM, hep <dis at gruntle.org> wrote:
>>
>>> actually they can sue you. your right is that they cannot monetize your
>>> image, ie sell it, without having you release your rights to not have your
>>> image sold. but anyone can take a picture of you in any public place
>>> (noisebridge would count as public since it is specifically open to the
>>> public at large, and for the public use. it falls in the same category as
>>> malls), and you do not in fact have the right to break their camera or
>>> demand they delete the photos. if you do break their camera they can in
>>> fact have you arrested for theft, and can in fact sue you to replace the
>>> camera and any other damages that may occur. if they are a professional
>>> photographer and had images on it they obtained rights to and planned on
>>> monetizing they can sue you for the lost value as well.
>>>
>>> From Andrew Kantor's excellent photographers rights essay:
>>>
>>> "Further, they cannot demand your camera or your digital media or film.
>>> Well, they can demand it, but you are under no obligation to give it to
>>> them. In fact, only an officer of the law or court can take it from you,
>>> and then only with a court order. And if they try or threaten you? They can
>>> be charged with theft or coercion, and you may even have civil recourse.
>>> Cool. (For details, see "The Photographer's Right.")
>>>
>>> It gets better.
>>>
>>> You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not
>>> it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are
>>> most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if
>>> you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot."
>>>
>>>
>>> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
>>>  http://content.photojojo.com/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:55 PM, maestro <maestro415 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: maestro <maestro415 at gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:55 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] sleeping in turing
>>>> To: Jake <jake at spaz.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bullshit.
>>>> although NB doesn't have 'rules' per literal definition,
>>>> it has ALWAYS been policy NOT to take photos in the space without
>>>> asking and/or announcing you are doing it and what for, or someone else has
>>>> put something on the list that people are coming to space and will be
>>>> filming/photos like mitch does when he sends folks on by the space....
>>>>
>>>> this is most UNEXCELLENT and fucking lame and not the first time this
>>>> person has suggested doing it...
>>>> still haven't found out what 'kind' of badge he has or reports to, if
>>>> anyone knows please make it public...
>>>>
>>>> i invite anyone and everyone who catches anyone taking pictures of
>>>> people WITHOUT their knowledge and permission to grab the camera, take it
>>>> straight to the dirty room or wherever, and get to pounding it into e-waste
>>>> making sure you have destroyed the disc and/or film...
>>>>
>>>> and this is your right by the way and NO, they can't sue you so no
>>>> worries (great hacking too)...
>>>>
>>>> sleepers can be dealt with in many other ways...
>>>> fascinating that beings would need to be told how but here are just a
>>>> few starters *
>>>> *1st time merely quietly wake them and calmly say IN A COOL WAY "hey,
>>>> just letting you know the house doesn't want people sleeping and i'm just
>>>> letting you know before others come and snap/yell at you..."
>>>> *walk by clapping loudly, clearing your bronchial cavity, or singing
>>>> *move one of the portable audio devices next to them and put on the
>>>> spanish or chinese station for 3 minutes (if they haven't risen start
>>>> dropping books)
>>>>
>>>> been said way too many times already but getting rid of ALL the couches
>>>> WILL deplete number of sleepers, bedbugs, stank, and filth immediately...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> message ends
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim (and everyone else who finds sleepers)
>>>>>
>>>>> Next time, please get pictures and/or names!
>>>>>
>>>>> it's not that hard, and it will help us deal with repeat offenders.
>>>>>
>>>>> keep in mind that squatters are taking advantage of the fact that we
>>>>> are not good at tracking them because many hackers prefer to avoid awkward
>>>>> social interactions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do it!  Ask them their name, so you can post it to this list.  If they
>>>>> are asleep or pretending to be asleep (a common tactic) take a photo, and
>>>>> post it to this list.
>>>>>
>>>>> -jake
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim wrote:
>>>>>     I got here around 9:15 AM and went into
>>>>> the Turing classroom. The door was closed
>>>>> and the air smelled like fice-hour farts.
>>>>>     Two guys seems asleep, one had just left
>>>>> the room, one was sitting in a heap on the
>>>>> floor and one was in a chair, kind of dazed.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Not excellent in my view.
>>>>> jim the snitch
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.**noisebridge.net<Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/**mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-**discuss<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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> hep
>>> hepic photography || www.hepic.net
>>>     dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> hep
> hepic photography || www.hepic.net
>     dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>


-- 
Ronald Cotoni
Systems Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130115/4ec2ec2b/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list