[Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise

[Torrie Fischer]

Hmm, yeah, I think my wording was unclear. I mean in the abstract sense of 
"all anonymous users". Nobody to my knowledge has given any of those people a 
token. Then again, there isn't a way to confirm that one of those upstanding 
individuals has not acquired one from a friend of a friend of a friend.

I trust that nobody has given them a token. As a thought experiment though, I 
don't think it is too much a stretch to consider all anonymous tokens the same 
person: a mysterious anonymous entity who happens to have a dozen tokens all 
to themselves. I'm thinking about this in the context of set theory.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not assuming bad faith with any of the current 
token-granting users of the system. I do trust that everyone who has given out 
a token did it with the best interests of our community in their heart: that 
they might one day become assimilated into our culture and Be Really Fucking 
Excellent. If someone has a token, I think they're pretty cool 99.999% of the 
time! I can only think of one person who I don't agree should have a token but 
I suspect their expiration is up soon so I'm trying to not worry about it too 
much as best as any human can.

On Thursday, April 30, 2015 03:05:51 PM kjs wrote:
> Who gave sid, harvey, rob 2.0, etc. access tokens? The pool of people who
> are able to create access tokens is small. I argue that more critical
> systems fall apart in a world where we assume that someone has issued a key
> to folks on the 86'ed list.
> On April 30, 2015 2:49:20 PM PDT, Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net> 
wrote:
> >On Thursday, April 30, 2015 01:53:19 PM Harry Moreno wrote:
> >> Anyone object to allowing anonymous users early access to
> >
> >Noisebridge?
> >
> >I do. Vehemently.
> >
> >The set of anonymous users includes such people as Harvey, Sid, Rob
> >2.0, and
> >other fun personalities from the 86 page. I'd be cool with giving
> >identified
> >people early access to Noisebridge. It isn't a requirement that the
> >information in the database be one's True And Legal Name (as the state
> >of
> >California calls it), but merely the nym one wishes to identify as. My
> >entries
> >in there say "tdfischer" and "tdfischer at hackerbots.net". You'd be hard
> >pressed
> >to find a court of law that would accept tdfischer as my "legal" name.
> >
> >I honestly don't care what name people give when they deanonymize
> >themselves
> >in the database. I only care that people can be held accountable for
> >shitting
> >in the woodshop. Consensus on all levels has it that shitting in the
> >woodshop
> >is unexcellent. If an anonymous person with a vendetta comes in and
> >shits in
> >the woodshop, how could it be prevented? Would we just hope that they
> >don't
> >shit in there again? Shouldn't it make sense that we would know who did
> >it and
> >tell the community "Hey folks, Jackhammer Jill shit in the woodshop.
> >Don't let
> >her back in."?
> >
> >Being listed in the access database as "member" is just a technical
> >implementation. Much like all attempts to programatically validate
> >someone's
> >Real Name as being two separate words with UTF-8 characters, it
> >completely
> >misses the reality of how things work. You still don't need to be a
> >member to
> >have 24/7 access to the door.
> >
> >However, you do need the consent of Noisebridge to have it. I'm pretty
> >much a
> >hardass about consenting to that and insisting that I get to know
> >someone and
> >feel comfortable with it before I'd be cool with them having 24/7
> >access.