[Noisebridge-discuss] door "security": culture, not policy.

Sai noisebridge at saizai.com
Sat Mar 23 07:11:33 UTC 2013

Your entire argument about why it would be more secure to have the
gate lock rather than the top door was premised on turning people
away, and the difficulty of doing so once they're already in our
space. You seem to be seriously ambivalent — simultaneously arguing
that we should stop people at the gate yet that you're not talking
about turning people away.

I do disagree that we should be doing more of it. I like Noisebridge
being open. "Trust but verify" (and, y'know, introduce yourself to
people) is a good model.

What I've repeatedly agreed with in your comments — echoing Naomi's
and others' — is that one thing we can and should do more of is have
more of a real "greet at the door" practice, and have people letting
someone in have responsibility for having that interaction with people
coming in.

I think you are absolutely wrong that using the gate buzzer encourages
that; rather, it does the exact opposite. If you're buzzing someone in
on the basis of grainy video cam, and then have time to go sit down
before you can have a real human interaction, you're simply not as
likely to interact with them in person.

By contrast, if you have to let them in at the top door, you
*necessarily* have an immediate interaction with them in person —
rather than the impersonal and useless "do they look sketchy on the
CCTV" press-a-button-when-you-hear-the-buzzer BS.

What is untenable about your idea of gate is that even you can't give
any criteria, which you can determine through the grainy videophone,
on which you would refuse someone entrance. And it's not in keeping
with Noisebridge's culture to refuse entrance to someone by default.
So let's just admit that we're *not* in fact doing that.

The only reasons you gave for having a gate lock vs top lock are
related to physically expelling someone from the space — and you
haven't given any example of when you could even *make* that decision
in the context of buzzing someone at the gate, so it's moot. What
other "several reasons" do you have why it is "ridiculous and
impossible" to have the interaction occur only at the top door?

Again, if it's anything like "we should turn people away at the gate",
I challenge you to give criteria by which you think we would turn
people away at the gate via videophone. If you can't, please admit
that what we really want to be doing is filtering and introducing at
the top door, and tailor our response / lock appropriately to that.

- Sai

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> you were first at ignoring what I said.  I said that by increasing
> accountability of people buzzing the door open (by requiring them to use
> their personal code to activate the door opener) we motivate people to put
> more effort into getting to know the people they are letting in.
> i wasn't talking so much about turning people away (which is clearly
> something we need to be doing more, or do you disagree?) but about
> increasing the care with which we DO let people in.
> and if you're still advocating that we put a lock on the top door, i ask
> that you go back and read my post about why that is ridiculous and
> impossible, and tell me where i went wrong with that.  To me the idea is an
> obvious non-starter for several reasons.  The fact that you're still pushing
> it tells me you're not really paying attention to the issue.
> -jake
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Sai wrote:
>>> your objection to any course of action is telling of your defeatism.
>> I did no such thing, Jake.
>> Quite explicitly the opposite: I said that I don't think your
>> suggestion that we somehow turn people away at the gate is even
>> well-thought-through — something you basically admitted, by saying you
>> *don't* have any criteria for doing so — and that instead we should
>> focus on the humanization aspects about getting people to interact in
>> person.
>> Moving the lock to the top would *increase* the motivation to
>> meet-and-talk — something I think is a good thing in all regards, both
>> for security and for friendliness.
>> I think that filtering people at the gate not only doesn't happen, but
>> it can't, and that having the door buzzer be delayed simply enables
>> people to (as Naomi accurately described) just behave on reflex to
>> unlock the door, and go sit back down by the time the person has come
>> upstairs. Let's at least be honest about that, give up on the gate
>> "security", and focus on the IRL interaction.
>> I find it somewhat offensive that you totally disregarded what I actually
>> said.
>> - Sai
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>> your objection to any course of action is telling of your defeatism.
>>> I suggest that by increasing the individual accountability of people who
>>> choose to buzz the door open for others, we are increasing the chance
>>> that
>>> those people will make sure they know something about the people they let
>>> in.  If it's someone they recognize, they might buzz them in and return
>>> to
>>> what they are doing.  If it is someone they don't recognize, they are
>>> more
>>> likely to wait for them to arrive at the top of the stairs and introduce
>>> themselves.
>>> right now there is no motivation for people to talk to and meet the
>>> people
>>> they are letting into the space.  This anonymity makes the space ripe for
>>> abuse by people who have no connection to hacking.  If it is harder to
>>> get
>>> in and people without codes have to depend on people with codes, there
>>> will
>>> be more interpersonal interaction and that will result in better
>>> regulation
>>> of the space, and the people using it.
>>> -jake
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Sai wrote:
>>>> So are there any criteria you can articulate for when to not let
>>>> someone into the building?
>>>> If not, I suggest giving up on that idea and making it about
>>>> humanization. IMO it's a strategy much more likely to be effective
>>>> than "do they look suspicious on the grainy street cam" pseudostrategy
>>>> which is in place now.
>>>> - Sai
>>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>>>> i'm just saying that the act of letting people into the building is a
>>>>> big
>>>>> deal and people should take responsibility for it and use their best
>>>>> judgement.
>>>>> the alternative is not working.
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Sai wrote:
>>>>>> So… practical question.
>>>>>> I can see that, if you're intending to prevent someone from entering,
>>>>>> you should do so at the street. However… that doesn't really seem to
>>>>>> be in the cards here.
>>>>>> If someone wants in to NB, they can probably get in, by waiting for
>>>>>> someone to use the door, asking someone else to let them in, etc etc.
>>>>>> AFAICT the point of the "greet at door" bit is not to turn people
>>>>>> away, but to humanize the space, make sure new people get introduced,
>>>>>> have others aware of who's walking around, that sort of thing.
>>>>>> You seem to be suggesting otherwise, so: could you please suggest
>>>>>> guidelines for who you think should be refused entrance, that can be
>>>>>> done via a shitty videophone? E.g. what questions must someone be able
>>>>>> to answer over intercom? Must they be recognized by someone in the
>>>>>> space? Must they not look some particular way?
>>>>>> I'd bet that you can't. (Possibly with the exception of uniformed
>>>>>> police or obvious Secret Service?)
>>>>>> Unless I'm wrong with that bet, I'd suggest we own up to the fact that
>>>>>> what's really on the table is face-to-face interaction in the space,
>>>>>> with the (extremely rare) possibility of ejecting someone who is there
>>>>>> — and not, really, turning people away at the gate.
>>>>>> The two call for fairly different responses. Moving the lock to the
>>>>>> top door would help for the humanize version. A better camera and a
>>>>>> door way light would help for at-the-gate version.
>>>>>> - Sai
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> here we go again...
>>>>>>> also i'll remind everyone that as tenants of 2169 mission it is our
>>>>>>> responsibility to not allow anyone into the building (past the main
>>>>>>> gate)
>>>>>>> who we are not allowing into the third floor.
>>>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2012-February/028220.html
>>>>>>> [Noisebridge-discuss] Upstairs door latch mechanism?
>>>>>>> Jake jake at spaz.org
>>>>>>> Fri Feb 10 02:34:39 PST 2012
>>>>>>> I guess a bunch of people have been talking about latching or locking
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> upstairs door.
>>>>>>> Are you people crazy?  Don't you realize that by the time someone is
>>>>>>> upstairs they feel as though they are practically inside the space
>>>>>>> already?
>>>>>>> If you can't turn someone away at the sidewalk, and they get to the
>>>>>>> top
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the stairs, it is only going to make them angry if you refuse to let
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> in.  It is going to create more conflict, not less, especially if you
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> the smarmy little porthole to shield yourself while refusing to let
>>>>>>> someone in while someone else comes up behind you and second-guesses
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> decision in front of the person.
>>>>>>> have you ever been at a teller window (post office for example) where
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> clerk, who is telling you NO you can't have what you came here for,
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> isolated behind a 2" thick piece of lexan with a tiny little
>>>>>>> breathing
>>>>>>> hole where you're supposed to talk and listen through?  Do you
>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>> feeling hostility toward that person and wondering what you would do
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> you could reach through the little hole and strangle them?
>>>>>>> well that's whats going to happen to you if you try to keep people
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> the top of the stairs, because eventually someone is going to open
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> door and that person is going to come in anyway, and be pissed at
>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>> We need to focus on bouncing people at the sidewalk door.  If you are
>>>>>>> having trouble understanding this concept, please ask some people
>>>>>>> whose
>>>>>>> opinion you trust before continuing with this idea of locking the
>>>>>>> upstairs
>>>>>>> door.
>>>>>>> sincerely,
>>>>>>> -jake
>>>>>>> Casey Callendrello wrote (Thu Feb 9 22:58:35 PST 2012):
>>>>>>> Hi there.
>>>>>>> The upstairs door is already keyed with the A-key. However, the latch
>>>>>>> mechanism has been removed. Does anyone know where it is?
>>>>>>> If not, I'll try to order a new one. The crash bar is a "Von Duprin
>>>>>>> 44".
>>>>>>> However, these parts are surprisingly expensive and hard to track
>>>>>>> down.
>>>>>>> --c.
>>>>>>> Casey Callendrello wrote:
>>>>>>> Adding a lock to the upstairs door is quite doable. I've looked in to
>>>>>>> this before. There are a few things that need to be done:
>>>>>>> 1) Some boring locksmithy stuff of getting some locks re-keyed
>>>>>>> 2) Re-building the elevator lobby door. Not too hard
>>>>>>> 3) Electronic strikes for both doors
>>>>>>> 4) Pin pads for both doors
>>>>>>> 1 and 2 are easy. 3 and 4 are also pretty simple, but will take some
>>>>>>> proper effort.
>>>>>>> --Casey
>>>>>>> On 3/21/13 11:34 AM, Martin Bogomolni wrote:
>>>>>>>> In changing the problem I'm aligned with Rachel.  Move the lock from
>>>>>>>> -downstairs- to the upstairs door.   Also move the pin pad to the
>>>>>>>> upstairs door.
>>>>>>>> For our mobility-impaired members, and people who come on bikes, do
>>>>>>>> the same with an alternate wide door at the top landing where the
>>>>>>>> elevator is.   (Wall up the side door, make a sure door in front of
>>>>>>>> the elevator.   It's relatively easy to frame it up and put in a
>>>>>>>> prehung door.   Costs are pretty controlled for this.
>>>>>>>> -M
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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