[Noisebridge-discuss] Google Glass at the space?

[John Shutt]

If the chaos of the past few weeks are any indication, I don't think 100%
trust of the board is a given. Besides, even if I totally trusted every
person making and storing the recordings to act ethically, I would oppose
this sort of recording on principle and because of risks outside of the
board's control (hacked servers, subpoenas, etc.).
On Apr 13, 2014 5:50 PM, "Alfred Perlstein" <bright at mu.org> wrote:

>  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.
>
> -Alfred
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Alfred Perlstein <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 expect
>>>> that there would be a reasoning behind it as opposed to just a
>>>> "that's a bad idea" sort of reply.
>>>>
>>> okay.
>>>
>>> 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 people
>>> photographing or recording them. it's common courtesy at the space to
>>> ask everyone who could possibly be photographed or recorded if they
>>> 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 item
>>> 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 noisebridge.
>>>
>>> http://www.glasshole-free.org/
>>>
>>
>>  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!
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-January/034191.html
>>>
>>> i echo Martin's sentiment. draw your own conclusions.
>>>
>>> i apologize for being short with you in my first reply. i hope this
>>> 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
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alfred Perlstein
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140413/a7a197ee/attachment-0003.html>