[Noisebridge-discuss] Google Glass at the space?
bright at mu.org
Mon Apr 14 00:50:02 UTC 2014
On 4/13/14 5:12 PM, John Shutt wrote:
> There are a lot of people at Noisebridge that do not want to be
> subjected to continuous passive surveillance, myself included. Using
> Glass for experiments in the space (while leaving anyone who doesn't
> want to be recorded out of the frame) should be fine. Passively
> recording members and guests without their consent would not be okay.
I would imagine that those trusted to be on the board or appointed by
the board would have a level of trust to not retain any recordings past
a date when we know a theft hasn't occurred. It would also assist when
dealing with sleepers so that we are not afraid of them due to there
being video evidence of any assault.
So basically, your concerns are valid, but not really in this context as
we already have trust.
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Alfred Perlstein <bright at mu.org
> <mailto:bright at mu.org>> wrote:
> On 4/13/14 3:54 PM, Nick Owens wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 03:37:13PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> This really is in no way a constructive response. I would
> that there would be a reasoning behind it as opposed to just a
> "that's a bad idea" sort of reply.
> for starters, there's an item in the anti-harassment policy about
> 'harassing photography or recording'. ostensibly glass could
> be used to
> do that.
> I assume that trusted members noisebridge would use the glass only for
> 1) experiments
> 2) to review footage if there is an incident of theft of assault
> while they are making use of the glass at the space.
> secondly, a lot of folks at noisebridge just plain don't like
> photographing or recording them. it's common courtesy at the
> space to
> ask everyone who could possibly be photographed or recorded if
> consent to such.
> Sure, if I was a laptop thieving junkie I wouldn't want people
> recording me doing drugs or stealing things either.
> on top of that, it's just plain stupid to expect that these
> devices will
> in fact remain at noisebridge. such an expensive and in-demand
> would surely not last long.
> Are you saying that the top echelon of noisebridgers (the board)
> are not trustworthy enough to be loaned some hardware? Remember
> we are talking about a select few that have already been vetted as
> being trustworthy by the community. That said if the glass does
> happen to disappear then it would be a very strong statement about
> the viability of noisebridge as a safe and trustworthy space.
> Let's say we give glass to A and A's shortly disappears, we can
> easily surmise that this person is not responsible nor trustworthy
> of their other noisebridge responsibilities.
> not only that, there's plenty of people in sf that just don't like
> glass. including many businesses in the near vicinity of
> This would be for exclusive use inside the space, so I don't know
> what your site has to do with anything I am proposing except that
> maybe we ought to put a sign on the exit to remind people to
> remove the glass before venturing into our unsafe neighborhood.
> We can all agree that anything learned via experimentation
> is worth
> the money invested AND if we can get more security at the
> space it
> would be an added bonus!
> i echo Martin's sentiment. draw your own conclusions.
> i apologize for being short with you in my first reply. i hope
> email clears things up.
> I think Martin should have installed tracking and surveillance
> measures into the items he left out. He could have very easily
> rid the space of thieves. Seems like a missed opportunity to me.
> Alfred Perlstein
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss