[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: sleeping in turing
jim
jim at well.com
Tue Jan 15 19:15:54 UTC 2013
Might be good to meet in the space around 6 or 7 AM.
I'm opposed to people sleeping in the space repeatedly
by habit.
I'd love to throw all couches out.
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 10:51 -0800, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
> 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
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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