[Noisebridge-discuss] access for members and associate members at all hours
Jeffrey Carl Faden
jeffreyatw at gmail.com
Mon May 12 20:58:52 UTC 2014
I agree with your overall assessment, Jake. I would also support the
language change in your proposal which more clearly defines the roles and
privileges of our member tiers. I agree that anyone who wants to be able to
work at Noisebridge should be able to do so at any time, and if they are
not a member, then one should sponsor their presence.
I disagree, though, that your proposal will always make it easier for a
member to approach someone and ask them to leave. That is because,
regardless of what they are doing, the people who abuse the space can often
make excuses that are hard to refute:
- "I'm an associate member / full member, my name just isn't on the wiki"
- "Oh, so-and-so said I could be here (but they left|but they don't
exist|but I'm lying)"
- "Why are you singling me out?"
- "I don't have to tell you my name or anything about me"
- or they might threaten you with harm or otherwise scare you.
The reason I still think an RFID system should be in-place is because while
it is important to enforce these roles at all times, it's not always
possible. A second layer of computer-controlled access control will make it
harder for people to make their way into the space when those who are
available to sponsor them are less available.
Bruce Schneier is keen to use the phrase "security theater" to describe
systems that only seem to enforce restrictions but can easily be
circumvented by those with enough intent. And if you'll notice in the other
thread I've responded to, I've labeled this RFID system as such. It is not
a silver bullet, but it might make it easier to get the job done.
If we're being honest, if associate and full members are the only ones who
should ever be able to enter the space on their own, then it would make
sense to give them all access on this RFID system and keep the door locked
24/7 (just like the gate is). This technology won't solve our problems, but
all-hours access restriction seems like the most effective way of keeping
it relevant. Wouldn't you agree?
(BTW, having just written the last paragraph, I'm not saying I agree with
such a drastic measure. But anyone who's serious about members-only access
should see why it makes sense.)
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> I saw mention of the "members only hours" concept again recently and i am
> sad that people don't remember why that failed. It was terrible.
> I recommended from the start, and i still recommend, having the same
> policy at all times. There was actually a nice hacker visiting from
> Germany who was kicked out of noisebridge only because it was 11PM and
> people were just following orders. The after-hours thing is a dead idea.
> I really think noisebridge should pass my last proposal, which makes it
> really straightforward who can be in the space, at all times:
> "Noisebridge is open to Members, Associate Members, and guests sponsored
> by same, at all times. Any person who is not one of the above may be
> asked to leave if no Member or Associate Member present wishes to
> sponsor them at that time, with no other justification being necessary.
> People coming to Noisebridge who don't know anyone should be introduced
> to members who are present so that sponsorship can occur if members
> present choose to do so at that time. Noisebridge should present itself
> as 'open to public visitors and guests as often as possible'"
> on another note, i see that people have been talking about the RFID thing
> as if it is going to solve social problems. I don't believe that's true. I
> think it's a great project and worth doing, but ultimately the social
> problems we are dealing with will ONLY be solved by people like us showing
> up at the space, and caring for the space in-person.
> Some people mentioned they were at the space the other day, talking about
> the RFID stuff, while two people were sleeping in the kitchen, and They Did
> Nothing. I understand why, because for too long Noisebridge has not
> provided an effective framework for justifying or supporting the ejection
> of people for sleeping, or general misuse of the space. My proposal above
> addresses that problem, in a practical way that eliminates the blame game.
> With the above proposal, a person can be asked to leave without an
> accusation of sleeping or habitating or anything like that - simply because
> there is no member present who wishes to sponsor them. It makes it much
> easier to ask someone to leave, which is the only way we can take our
> hackerspace back from mission st. chaos.
> in the words of Bruce Schneier:
> "If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you don't
> understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss