The webcam discussion returns

[Russ Garrett]

Someone is covering up the webcams again. This kind of unilateral
passive-aggressiveness is not cool - our space is run by consensus and
deliberately circumventing that makes people angry.

At the end of the last thread [1] the pro-webcam side was willing to
agree on compromise, but none of the anti-webcam people responded to
let us know whether those suggestions were suitable.

So, I will ask again: what changes to the cameras would you like in
order to make you more comfortable?

(If you don't have anything constructive to contribute, please don't
contribute at all. If you use gmail, the mute button is ^ that way)

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/london-hack-space/browse_thread/thread/bb95d74ec629caf4

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[tom]

this is interesting, especially as my projector has gone missing.

> [1]http://groups.google.com/group/london-hack-space/browse_thread/thread...
>
> --
> Russ Garrett
> r...@garrett.co.uk

[visionOntv]

Must admit I like the DIY security of the open webcams. Its clever and
probably affective.

Just to say I help out in organisations agenst CCTV, but this use of
CCTV is different as its open, the people are policing them selves.

Hamish

[Clare Greenhalgh]

I have nothing against anywhere in the Space being under scrutiny
other than the loo - this is not going out to anywhere that could
tamper with it, and with the problems there have been recently with
both the knitting machine and the laser cutter I think it would be
good to be able to see whomever is responsible for these acts, and
then does not admit it!

Noko

If people don't want it then surely it is their behaviour that may be
questionable.....

--

[Catherine Flick]

On 8 August 2011 14:37, Clare Greenhalgh <claregr...@gmail.com> wrote:

If people don't want it then surely it is their behaviour that may be
questionable.....

This is a common argument made about such things and it's not a very good one.  There are plenty of good reasons for not wanting to be under surveillance that are not a result of "questionable behaviour". 

That said, I'm of the opinion that it's fine to have the cameras in the space, but making them publicly accessible (without a member password) is not a good thing. Having them in a protected members-only part of the hackspace site makes it less potentially voyeuristic to a wider audience and more useful to members. It's not so much the images that are the problem but the access that's the issue - who has access? How long is the data kept for? What are the storage policies? This is much easier to nail down when the streams aren't available to the entire internet. 

tl;dr:

IMO:

* cameras are okay within the scope of the space

* make the streams private to members only

* write up a document providing details of storage, access, and data policies so this doesn't keep coming up

I'd be happy to advise in more detail on any of the above - I'm an ethicist by trade and have helped to write a few of these sorts of things before.

Cheers,

Catherine

[Charles Yarnold]

It seems those who feel the cameras should be publicly posted and promoted have compromised to removing any public facing links and trying to hide it from google as best as possible. Where as those who want the other end of the scale of no or members only cameras don't seem to have compromised much at all.

It seems to me the middle ground is a webcam page that while not passworded to members can be given to the public if they have a reason to want to see the cameras. That way a member has to choose to give the link to them.

Sol

[Catherine Flick]

The original call was to remove the cameras completely. How is a "members only" suggestion not a compromise?

That seems like a reasonable "middle ground" to me. The problem with giving out the link to non-members is that there is a significant risk that the link could be passed on beyond its original intention. Not that I'm saying everyone and her cat want to watch the hackspace, but it *is* conceivable, and it *could* be used for originally unintended purposes. 

The cameras are there for people to check to see if anyone's around or what's going on in the space, and for security. Why should anyone but members be interested in these? Non-members need to liaise with members to be let in, in the first place (theoretically), so should either be invited in or come to an open night, when it's pretty well guaranteed to have people there. As for "what's going on", same again. Only really necessary for members to see if the laser cutter is free, or if the workshop's really on, etc. there would need to be a significant and solid argument for non-members to be able to see this to satisfy those not wishing to have the data stream public. If it's to "show off" the space, then photos will suffice. I can't actually think of any other reason people who are not members would want to look at the cams, except as a "hey cool" type thing - in which case they can join up and "hey cool" with the rest of us. 

We want this to be an inclusive and non-threatening space. Let's do it as much as we can. 

C. 

[Mark Steward]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Catherine Flick <lie...@gmail.com> wrote:

The original call was to remove the cameras completely. How is a "members only" suggestion not a compromise?

That seems like a reasonable "middle ground" to me. The problem with giving out the link to non-members is that there is a significant risk that the link could be passed on beyond its original intention. Not that I'm saying everyone and her cat want to watch the hackspace, but it *is* conceivable, and it *could* be used for originally unintended purposes. 

The cameras are there for people to check to see if anyone's around or what's going on in the space, and for security. Why should anyone but members be interested in these? Non-members need to liaise with members to be let in, in the first place (theoretically), so should either be invited in or come to an open night, when it's pretty well guaranteed to have people there. As for "what's going on", same again. Only really necessary for members to see if the laser cutter is free, or if the workshop's really on, etc. there would need to be a significant and solid argument for non-members to be able to see this to satisfy those not wishing to have the data stream public. If it's to "show off" the space, then photos will suffice. I can't actually think of any other reason people who are not members would want to look at the cams, except as a "hey cool" type thing - in which case they can join up and "hey cool" with the rest of us. 

The counters to that from the previous discussion (q.v.) are:

  1. they're more to stop people dicking around with impunity than for security

  2. various members/ex-members from out of town appreciate being able to "join in" without making the trip

  3. insisting people join before being able to view something trivial like webcam is pretty mean

  4. if the webcam's visible at some times, how do you make it expire?  Who's going to write/control that?

  5. what's your threat model for a non-member viewing the webcam?

I don't think we need to have a few hundred more messages about each person's speculative views on the webcams again.  We want to know why whoever's screwing around with them is doing it, and what they want us to do to stop them.

Mark

[tom]

also some sort of alarm that goes off when the camera detects a 100%
black feed would be nice :)

[Tom Newsom]

It's not trivial when it's in a private place. I was under the
impression that the webcams *were* member-access only. I wouldn't put
a public webcam in my own house, and expect a similarly reasonable
amount of privacy when I'm in the space. Yes, mis-use is very
unlikely, but it's an important principle. If *anyone* feels
uncomfortable being publicly broadcast in a private space, then that
should be taken account of. Members-only is a fine compromise that
enables nearly all the aims of the webcams.

On Aug 8, 4:54 pm, Mark Steward <markstew...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jim MacArthur]

Several people expect the same privacy in their own home and in the hackspace, and several people don't. I value my privacy when I'm at home, but I'm completely astonished that people expect privacy in the hackspace. There is a large gulf of understanding to cover here, and I don't think any one person can say what a "fine compromise" is yet.

Jim

[Charles Yarnold]

Well put.

[Mark Steward]

There are also areas in the space that are invisible on webcam.  They just don't have anything breakable in.

Mark

[danny staple]

I do find it a bit odd comparing a space with 300+ members, open
nights, and generally permissive entrance setup with a private home.
The only private space in the Hackspace that I can see is the toilet.
(And the shower if there will be one). Otherwise it is about as
private as I'd expect a library or work office to be.

--
Danny Staple

Director, ODM Solutions Ltd
w: http://www.odmsolutions.co.uk
Blog: http://orionrobots.co.uk/blog1-Danny-Staple

[Dave Ingram]

On 08/08/11 17:50, danny staple wrote:
> I do find it a bit odd comparing a space with 300+ members, open
> nights, and generally permissive entrance setup with a private home.
> The only private space in the Hackspace that I can see is the toilet.
> (And the shower if there will be one). Otherwise it is about as
> private as I'd expect a library or work office to be.

Agreed.

D

[Katie Sutton]

On 8 August 2011 17:15, Jim MacArthur <j...@mode7.co.uk> wrote:

> Several people expect the same privacy in their own home and in the
> hackspace, and several people don't. I value my privacy when I'm at home,
> but I'm completely astonished that people expect privacy in the hackspace.

+1

--
Katie Sutton
http://tajasel.org

"The ‘Net is a waste of time, and that’s exactly what’s right about
it." ~ William Gibson

[M]

Are you all on webcam 24/7 from your place of employment such that the
entire world can view you, can phone you, email you, and potentially
turn you into a meme at any random opportunity? I'm fat, probably
makes for a funny meme.

--
>
++++++++++[>+>+++>++
+++++>++++++++++<<<<
-]>>>+++++++.>++++++
+++++.+++..---------
.++++++++++.<<+++.<.

[Dave Ingram]

On 08/08/11 18:10, M wrote:
> Are you all on webcam 24/7 from your place of employment such that the
> entire world can view you, can phone you, email you, and potentially
> turn you into a meme at any random opportunity?

Not yet, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. But I wouldn't expect
the same level of privacy at the office (or the 'space) as I would at
home. Home is definitely private, whereas the others are (relatively)
public areas.

D

[Nicholas FitzRoy-Dale]

On 08/08/2011, at 4:54 PM, Mark Steward wrote:
> 5. what's your threat model for a non-member viewing the webcam?

Just for the intellectual exercise (I don't mind that the cams are public, but neither would I care if they disappeared forever): it is not difficult to get into the space without a door key, and if I were going to rob the place I would

a) prefer to jimmy a window rather than open the door (no access logs); and
b) appreciate publically-available (no access logs) web cams which would tell me when the space was empty, and potentially where the good stuff is (if any ;-)

Nicholas

[Jim MacArthur]

Clearly a few people think similarly to me, but my point was that the people on the other side are scratching their heads wondering why I think this way as well, and I'd genuinely like to try and figure out what all the issues are. Jumping to solutions based on shaky assumptions is what's annoying me right now.

[danny staple]

I'm geeky with goofy teeth, eternally bad hair, a comedy beard and probably a comedy walk as well as a bit fat. If I was worried that much about what people made of my appearance and social awkwardness (prone to Aww cap did I just say that out loud moments) I'd never leave my flat.

It turns out that most don't care, and those who get more laughs from my teeth than my crazy ideas probably don't matter much anyway.

A sense of perspective here please.  

typed on my phone expect typos...

[Adrian Godwin]

On 8/8/11, M <a.turn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you all on webcam 24/7 from your place of employment such that the
> entire world can view you, can phone you, email you, and potentially
> turn you into a meme at any random opportunity? I'm fat, probably
> makes for a funny meme.
>

I think that's an over-reaction. Look at ?spies anytime, or the graph
that shows webcam usage. Most of the time, nobody's watching.
Occasionally it gets as high as maybe 3 for short periods, perhaps
even more if there's a big fuss on IRC.

Thing is, just because someone CAN watch you, doesn't mean they do.
Frankly, watching someone sit at a desk and work really isn't that
interesting. Why do you think the likes of that house thing that used
to be on TV had to work so hard to make things happen, create
conflict, persuade hot women to show off etc. ? And it was still
insanely boring.

-adrian

[Martin Klang]

We don't all have to agree, but it would be nice if we could find a compromise.

After the last round of discussions things were left undecided, consensus didn't happen and everyone was bored to death/silence.
This obviously favoured the status quo, which was not to everyone's liking.

What we found was that there are a handful of good arguments for and against cameras, and an awful lot of really bad ones.
But we don't have to go through them all again, do we?

As for compromise, a few things that were discussed:
- members-only camera access
- manual switch to turn one or more cameras off (for a set period)
- camera-free zones

Now to a humble suggestion:

We've been running with the webcam free-for-all, more or less, for some time.

How about we change it a bit and see how that goes?

I suggest having cameras covering the workshop and lab 24 main area, which would seem the most interesting (is it?), and none in the chill / quiet areas.

love and rage,

/mx

[Martin Dittus]

During the last big discussion Robert's proposal was the best by far; it requires minimal changes, no new fancy technology, and introduces a designated camera-free zone which is definitely nice to have.

Finish moving the kitchen; set up desks in the newly free corner; then move cameras around to establish this as a camera-free zone.

I'm surprised that this is still being discussed; instead of perpetuating a constructed/false conflict I suggest people who care about this issue start coordinating and motivate others to make this happen.

The full proposal:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/london-hack-space/u5XXTsYpyvQ/lNWbLRYUsWQJ

(unfortunately his image has expired, but maybe he can re-post it?)

m.

[Jim MacArthur]

I'm surprised that this is still being discussed; instead of perpetuating a constructed/false conflict I suggest people who care about this issue start coordinating and motivate others to make this happen.

That's exactly why this is still being discussed - someone cared about the issue, and took action to change it to the way they wanted, and other people weren't happy with it.

[Robert Leverington]

http://tmp.rhl.me.uk/webcams.png

The red shaded areas being the areas that would continue to be covered
by the webcams.

Robert

[Martin Dittus]

On 8 Aug 2011, at 20:43, Jim MacArthur wrote:

>
> I'm surprised that this is still being discussed; instead of perpetuating a constructed/false conflict I suggest people who care about this issue start coordinating and motivate others to make this happen.
>
> That's exactly why this is still being discussed - someone cared about the issue, and took action to change it to the way they wanted, and other people weren't happy with it.
>

Let's not rehash old arguments. Covering the cameras does neither resolve the issue, nor is it acceptable on an ongoing basis.

Rearranging the space addresses the issue directly, and with lasting effect; and it combines other concerns (e.g. it's another reason to be motivated about moving the kitchen.)

[Charles Yarnold]

There are areas currently off camera, they are not being used by those who don't like the cams and they are still blocking them instead. I don't see how this would fix that.

[Martin Dittus]

There is only one desk, behind the big 3d printer, that's not covered by cams.

m.

[Charles Yarnold]

Also there are desks at the end of the main room next to the kitchen.

These all have been available to use, and users have opted to sit in camera'd areas and block the cams.

[Mark Steward]

But this is the problem - someone feels they need to cover the cameras, and won't explain why.  This is the politician's fallacy - something must be done, and this is something.  We *already* have areas not covered by the cameras, so we need more information on what we're doing wrong.

Mark

[Kal]

I didn't add my opinion to the last discussion so here it is:

I would prefer members only webcam feeds. With a open feed option for
special occasions/Tuesdays
I don't really care who is watching me, but from a security
perspective, having the cams open all the time just doesn't feel right
to me.

If the best compromise is a camfree zone in the old kitchen area, I
will settle for that, though that conflicts with the idea of having
that as a fabrication area for 3d printer plotter etc as has been
previously discussed.

We need more dedicated/fixed cams looking at the laser, storage boxes
and 3 in 1 lathe. We need to be able to hold people to account when
things go wrong/missing/get broken. I don't think this should even be
a debate, the trust model only goes so far with a 300+ membership.

thats as brief as I could make it.

Kal

[HaywardGB]

Blah blah blah.. That's what I read! Don't you know there's a war
going on out there? People are dying, children are starving, Argos is
getting looted for gods sake... When will the madness stop!!!!

In other news, I'd like the cams to be private, members only. Kal
summed it up very well and I'm +1 with his post.



Hugs and Peace x

[Earthshine]

Someone has also disabled the IR on the quiet room camera. Please put
this back on.

[tom]

Whats the penalty for fucking with hackspace infrastructure?

[amx109]

we currently have no 'reprimand' system

as discussed in another thread - we have limited options. ban from using equipment, ban from the space itself or being excluded from being a member.

[M]

The hack space door has a lock on it.

There is a pin-code system on a door along the way.

There is a security guard.

Big massive gate.

Should that not imply a degree of privacy?

--

[Dave Ingram]

On 08/10/11 14:55, M wrote:
> The hack space door has a lock on it.
>
> There is a pin-code system on a door along the way.
>
> There is a security guard.
>
> Big massive gate.
>
> Should that not imply a degree of privacy?

Not in the same way as a house. I'd argue it's as private as, perhaps, a
conference centre. It's not public in the way that a pub or shop is
public, but it's not private in the way that a house is private.

D

[Monty]

I like Robert's idea for rearranging the cameras to create better
defined off-camera zones. Alternatively, members-only would be a good
start.

On Aug 8, 2:02 pm, Russ Garrett <r...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:
> Someone is covering up the webcams again. This kind of unilateral
> passive-aggressiveness is not cool - our space is run by consensus and
> deliberately circumventing that makes people angry.
>
> At the end of the last thread [1] the pro-webcam side was willing to
> agree on compromise, but none of the anti-webcam people responded to
> let us know whether those suggestions were suitable.
>
> So, I will ask again: what changes to the cameras would you like in
> order to make you more comfortable?
>
> (If you don't have anything constructive to contribute, please don't
> contribute at all. If you use gmail, the mute button is ^ that way)
>
> [1]http://groups.google.com/group/london-hack-space/browse_thread/thread...
>
> --
> Russ Garrett
> r...@garrett.co.uk

[Monty]

As far as I'm aware, none of the people who object to the cameras have
stated they expect the same amount of privacy in the hackspace as they
do at home so can we drop that line of reasoning please as it seems
bit of a straw man argument.

On Aug 10, 2:57 pm, Dave Ingram <d...@dmi.me.uk> wrote:
> On 08/10/11 14:55, M wrote:> The hack space door has a lock on it.
>
> > There is a pin-code system on a door along the way.
>
> > There is a security guard.
>
> > Big massive gate.
>
> > Should that not imply a degree of privacy?
>
> Not in the same way as a house. I'd argue it's as private as, perhaps, a
> conference centre. It's not public in the way that a pub or shop is
> public, but it's not private in the way that a house is private.
>
> D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 August 2011 14:48, amx109 <amx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> we currently have no 'reprimand' system
>
> >> as discussed in another thread - we have limited options. ban from using
> >> equipment, ban from the space itself or being excluded from being a member.
>

[Jim MacArthur]

It doesn't imply that to me, no. Visitors are invited to the hackspace, and most of the time none of those access controls are actually in place - when I visit I usually just walk straight in through open doors. This makes me think of it in similar terms to the lobby of the bank I use - although private property, anyone can walk in, but nobody expects privacy there.

Also, my house has far fewer access controls and the door is usually open, but people do not take that as a sign that it is public. I think access control is independent of expectations of privacy.

Jim

[Adrian Godwin]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Dave Ingram <da...@dmi.me.uk> wrote:

On 08/10/11 14:55, M wrote:
> The hack space door has a lock on it.
>
> There is a pin-code system on a door along the way.
>
> There is a security guard.
>
> Big massive gate.
>
> Should that not imply a degree of privacy?

Not in the same way as a house. I'd argue it's as private as, perhaps, a
conference centre. It's not public in the way that a pub or shop is
public, but it's not private in the way that a house is private.

In fact, it's similar to a (shared) office, which I don't think many people would regard as private.

There is community-level control of who has access and visibility of you, but not personal control. I'd argue that only the latter is privacy.

-adrian

[Philip Norman]

I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other, but I don't see any particular advantage to having the webcam feeds publicly accessible.  If some members want them restricted to members-only access, why don't we just do that?

Phil

[Jim MacArthur]

I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other, but I don't see any particular advantage to having the webcam feeds publicly accessible.  If some members want them restricted to members-only access, why don't we just do that?

There are several reasons, and the last time we took a count there were three times as many members who did not want members only than those who did.  

http://wiki.hackspace.org.uk/wiki/User:Ms7821/Security_theatre

[Russ Garrett]

On 10 August 2011 15:41, Philip Norman <ph...@propter.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other, but I don't
> see any particular advantage to having the webcam feeds publicly
> accessible.  If some members want them restricted to members-only access,
> why don't we just do that?

OK, for the benefit of those who didn't see/forgot the previous argument:

The main reason to keep the cams public is that it's useful for
prospective members to see what goes on in the space. A couple of
members have said that that the webcams were a reason why they decided
to come along in the first place.

That said, there are some possible compromises to this:
- Make the public feed lower-rate (1 frame per minute?)
- Delay the public feed (by an hour, or even a day?)

We really need to know from the anti-camera people which of these
compromises is acceptable to them.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[M]

can we please just try a period without the webcams.

--

[Dave Ingram]

On 08/10/11 16:15, M wrote:
> can we please just try a period without the webcams.

This happens when people disconnect them, and there are often cries of
"what happened? turn them back on!" relatively soon afterwards. Maybe if
it was a definite "these are off for a week" that wouldn't happen.

It would be interesting to detect when they are being manually turned
off, and measure how long and over what times of day that tends to
happen (probably by matching against fully-black output).

D

[Adrian Godwin]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:15 PM, M <a.turn...@gmail.com> wrote:

can we please just try a period without the webcams.

How would you evaluate whether it had worked or not ?
(that's an honest query, not an debating position).


-adrian

[Russ Garrett]

On 10 August 2011 16:15, M <a.turn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> can we please just try a period without the webcams.

I'm not sure what that'll achieve. At the end of the period the
majority of people will still want them switched back on.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[M]

I believe it will provide better understanding, an opportunity for
expectations to be re-evaluated properly, a chance for real change to
occur.

--

[M]

Just to clarify, my thoughts are not specifically for nor against
having them when I propose turning off the webcams. I see it as simply
starting from scratch with that concept.

[Monty]

On Aug 10, 3:15 pm, Jim MacArthur <j...@mode7.co.uk> wrote:
> This makes me think of it in similar terms to the lobby of the bank I use - although
> private property, anyone can walk in, but nobody expects privacy there.

I have an expectation of privacy no matter where I am, but the extent
of that privacy obviously depends on the situation and circumstances.
Privacy isn't just about restricting who can see you or preventing
them seeing what you're doing. Privacy is also the right to be let
alone and that is something enforced through social norms (i.e. the
concept that it's rude to stare) as well as [partially/indirectly] by
law (i.e. harassment).

To quote George Radwanski (http://www.priv.gc.ca/speech/
02_05_a_020527_e.cfm):

"If you're sitting on a park bench reading a letter, you should expect
that people can see you, and see what you're doing. But you wouldn't
expect someone to sit beside you and read over your shoulder, or to
zoom in on your letter with a video camera.

Suppose a police officer decided to walk directly behind you on the
street all day, quite obviously and deliberately following you
everywhere you go. I'm sure you'd find that unacceptable, even if he
wasn't saying a word to you or bothering you in any direct way. You'd
probably consider it harassment - because he was invading your
privacy.

[...]

So, I believe you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy when
you're out in public. And more than that, you have a fundamental right
to privacy."


But this is all just a tangent that was partially brought up last time
and could be discussed at great length in a thread all by itself.



I feel it would be really useful if we look into what Catherine Flick
suggested i.e. "write up a document providing details of storage,
access, and data policies so this doesn't keep coming up" since while
putting up signs next to the cameras stating that they were public the
other week I discovered a few members were under the impression that
they were members-only. It would probably also be useful to take on
board, but not necessarily following, what the voluntary ICO's CCTV
guidelines state (http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/
data_protection/topic_guides/cctv.aspx) since it tries to closely
follow the Data Protection Act while highlighting examples of public
expectations of cameras. And yes, that is me volunteering to help get
it done.

[Clare Greenhalgh]

Completely agree with you Russ. The webcams will get turned back on again so why bother. I cannot believe this thread is still going. I also find it odd that people are so against the webcams.
I am not a fan of cameras to say the least (unless I am behind the machine) but feel the Space is not my home, we are on camera for most of our life when not at home so this is fine.
CCTV is everywhere so I don't think about it much now.

[Billy]

I know that the workshop cam is disconnected when people are welding.

Adding in a movable welding-mask-glass-eyeshield to the camera, would
allow the camera to remain on during this. It'll make for some nice
visuals too...


On Aug 10, 4:51 pm, Clare Greenhalgh <claregreenha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Completely agree with you Russ. The webcams will get turned back on again so
> why bother. I cannot believe this thread is still going. I also find it odd
> that people are so against the webcams.
> I am not a fan of cameras to say the least (unless I am behind the machine)
> but feel the Space is not my home, we are on camera for most of our life
> when not at home so this is fine.
> CCTV is everywhere so I don't think about it much now.

>  On Aug 10, 2011 4:30 PM, "Russ Garrett" <r...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:

>
> > On 10 August 2011 16:15, M <a.turntabl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> can we please just try a period without the webcams.
>
> > I'm not sure what that'll achieve. At the end of the period the
> > majority of people will still want them switched back on.
>
> > --
> > Russ Garrett

> > r...@garrett.co.uk

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik]

On 10 Aug 2011, at 17:27, Billy wrote:

> I know that the workshop cam is disconnected when people are welding.

Does a camera really care ?

Dw (who is wondering about the physics behind that).

[Toby Catlin]

no the camera will not care. It will probably white it out (over exposed) but thats all. Certainly no danger to anyone

[Adrian Godwin]

A quality camera will close it's iris when it's turned off (or, indeed if it sees a bright light). But a cheap webcam type camera doesn't have an iris. It reduces exposure by reducing the integration time on the cmos sensors. Just as much damage will be done to the sensor whether it's on or off. Turning it off during welding is completely pointless.

-adrian

[M]

I guess it depends if it's switched off, after it's moved away from
seeing the welding?

--

[Adrian Godwin]

That would be true, yes.

-adrian

[Catherine Flick]

Can we try a period of having the cams members only? Then if, after a month or so, there is a significant enough request from potential members (though why they don't look at photos or come to the space is beyond me) to have something like it, re-open them provisionally?

 

At least let's see what sorts of figures are behind the requesting of cam viewing by non-members and whether the members-only-ness stops the unplugging. 

Cheers,

Catherine

[Adrian Godwin]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Catherine Flick <lie...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

At least let's see what sorts of figures are behind the requesting of cam viewing by non-members and whether the members-only-ness stops the unplugging. 

That's something specific to measure, I support that. Though I think 'requesting of cam viewing by non-members' should be 'requesting by members to be able to offer viewing', as nobody's going to ask for something they don't realise is possible.

-adrian

[Sam Kelly]

Unless we put a note on the website saying something like:

---------------

We used to offer live camera feeds, but these have been temporarily restricted to members due to an ongoing debate about privacy--if you came here with a particular reason to see the space please tick one of these boxes and submit the poll.

[ ] Checking who's in the space, or whether a particular person is in
[ ] Checking whether a particular tool is being used

[ ] Checking if a task has been done
[ ] Wanting to feel part of the community
[ ] Other

On [30th September 2011 - just a suggested date, six weeks should be a good experiment] the camera feeds will be made public, unless there's a consensus to keep them members-only.

Regards,
London Hackspace

---------------------

--
Sam Kelly, http://www.eithin.co.uk/

That's it.  We're not messing around anymore, we're buying a bigger dictionary.  -  Tibor Fischer, The Thought Gang.

[Cepmender]

How about using the system we used for the trustee elections? "Candidates"  could be... No cameras cameras with members only access Switchable cameras   (within agreed conditions) Repositioned cameras (according to some published plan) Repositioned cameras (according to some other published plan) More cameras to cover all areas in HD with live streaming to youtube No change Not an exhaustive list, no doubt other "candidates" could be added..... Have the ballot, go with the final result, and have a moratorium on further discussion of the subject for twenty years :-)  --- On Wed, 10/8/11, Catherine Flick <lie...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Tim Hutt]

I agree, let's vote. Also with the private camera options we should publish a few more up to date photos of the hackspace so people can we're what it looks like.

On Aug 11, 2011 9:54 AM, "Cepmender" <cepm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> How about using the system we used for the trustee elections?
> "Candidates"  could be...

> No camerascameras with members only accessSwitchable cameras   (within agreed conditions)Repositioned cameras (according to some published plan)Repositioned cameras (according to some other published plan)More cameras to cover all areas in HD with live streaming to youtubeNo change

[Jim MacArthur]

I'm for voting on it, and against stopping discussing it. We've kept this to the mailing list, where you can easily ignore it - calling for people to stop debating the issue is very unpleasant.

M, thanks for the comments, I haven't had a chance to read them properly yet.

Jim

[Adrian Godwin]

This might be fine as long as all members agree to accept the
resulting verdict. But we first need to get everyone with an interest
to be involved in discussion. We have so far failed to do that.

-adrian

[bencoder]

I'm now an ex-member but I am for the cameras being members only. The comparison to cctv on the street or in your place of work or a library is disingenuous as these other situations are not broadcast to anybody on the internet to view, and I expect if your local library were to implement this, even supposedly as a means of "fostering the community", many people would be extremely unhappy.

While obviously not the purpose of the space, it's also possible that some members use it as a "safe" space, where they can be away from difficult situations at home/elsewhere, and I think cameras that could allow non members to stalk who's in the space takes away from that (though some might say that's fine as it's not the purpose of the space, I do think it's something to consider)

Ben

[Cepmender]

This discussion has failed to produce a measurable consensus so far. Indeed there is not going to be a solution that "all" members agree with.  Although this is an issue that has prompted a lot of debate, it has been , I feel, confused and a lot of extraneous detail has crept in. If it helps, I am willing to collate the various arguments for and against, the various alternative schemes that have been proposed and take any new ideas that members might have with a view to producing a summary of the issues as a base from which to launch a poll.  As I have stated in previous incarnations of this thread,I personally do not care whether the cameras are there or not and so would consider myself a neutral party in the discussion.     --- On Thu, 11/8/11, Adrian Godwin <artg...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Monty]

On Aug 11, 10:22 am, bencoder <benco...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> While obviously not the purpose of the space, it's also possible that some
> members use it as a "safe" space, where they can be away from difficult
> situations at home/elsewhere, and I think cameras that could allow non
> members to stalk who's in the space takes away from that (though some might
> say that's fine as it's not the purpose of the space, I do think it's
> something to consider)

On that note it's probably worth mentioning Section 22 of the Data
Protection Act which states:

"22 Preliminary assessment by Commissioner.
(1)In this section “assessable processing” means processing which is
of a description specified in an order made by the [F1 Secretary of
State] as appearing to him to be particularly likely—
(a)to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to data
subjects, or
(b)otherwise significantly to prejudice the rights and freedoms of
data subjects."

It's not inconceivable to believe that someone who is hiding from an
abusive partner or family could be substantially distressed after
having been in the space and discovering that anyone could potentially
have watched them and known where they are.

[Russ Garrett]

On 11 August 2011 11:05, Monty <mont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On that note it's probably worth mentioning Section 22 of the Data
> Protection Act which states:
>
> "22 Preliminary assessment by Commissioner.
> (1)In this section “assessable processing” means processing which is
> of a description specified in an order made by the [F1 Secretary of
> State] as appearing to him to be particularly likely—
> (a)to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to data
> subjects, or
> (b)otherwise significantly to prejudice the rights and freedoms of
> data subjects."
>
> It's not inconceivable to believe that someone who is hiding from an
> abusive partner or family could be substantially distressed after
> having been in the space and discovering that anyone could potentially
> have watched them and known where they are.

I understand that to date, the Secretary of State has never made a
section 22 instruction to the Information Commissioner, so that
section is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Catherine Flick]

Absolutely, and this is why we shouldn't ignore the fact that there could be some silent but significant minority who are not as fortunate in their lives as most of us (and who may be scared to speak up about it), so I'll speak up: I've had a stalker in my past (thankfully dealt with now, and relatively minor) and would have been scared away from the space if I'd known there was the potential for him to watch me there (because I know he would have found it). Hence why I don't appreciate the "if you're worried about being on camera perhaps you're doing something naughty"-type responses. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it's not a problem and something to be considerate about. At least if it's members-only there is the possibility to know who has access to the feed, and that's at least a little bit of control you can have over the situation.

C. 

On 11 August 2011 11:05, Monty <mont...@gmail.com> wrote:

[steeeve]

I agree with Kal.

Get some cameras on the important kit.

Make them members only, people can come and look at what you're doing
anyway, it's not that different.

I think they're pretty useful.

It's not like it's stored forever. Eventually the hard disks will
crumble into dust and the earth consumed by the sun. That, or your
footage will turn up in a museum of "early human society" (but that
would be pretty cool right?)

On Aug 10, 4:47 pm, M <a.turntabl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe it will provide better understanding, an opportunity for
> expectations to be re-evaluated properly, a chance for real change to
> occur.
>

> On 10 August 2011 16:30, Russ Garrett <r...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:

>
> > On 10 August 2011 16:15, M <a.turntabl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> can we please just try a period without the webcams.
>
> > I'm not sure what that'll achieve. At the end of the period the
> > majority of people will still want them switched back on.
>
> > --
> > Russ Garrett

> > r...@garrett.co.uk

[Jim MacArthur]

On 11 August 2011 13:30, steeeve <stevem...@gmail.com> wrote:

Make them members only, people can come and look at what you're doing
anyway, it's not that different.

Not everyone can. I like the public webcams because they advertise the space to people who can't easily come to the space; we have a lot of members and potential new members for whom coming to the space is a significant expense and effort. I don't think we should be thinking just about new members either - we do some amazing things in the hackspace and I think we should be shouting from the rooftops about it, and encouraging people all over the world to set up hackspaces if they can't come to ours. 

If there were lots of photos being taken and posted, that would do the job as well - but they aren't.

Jim

[Monty]

On Aug 11, 1:41 pm, Jim MacArthur <j...@mode7.co.uk> wrote:
> If there were lots of photos being taken and posted, that would do the job
> as well - but they aren't.

Again, as was suggested last time, we should then be encouraging more
people to document their projects and add photos to the Hackspace
Flickr stream http://www.flickr.com/groups/londonhackspace/pool

[Mark Steward]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Cepmender <cepm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

This discussion has failed to produce a measurable consensus so far. Indeed there is not going to be a solution that "all" members agree with.  Although this is an issue that has prompted a lot of debate, it has been , I feel, confused and a lot of extraneous detail has crept in. If it helps, I am willing to collate the various arguments for and against, the various alternative schemes that have been proposed and take any new ideas that members might have with a view to producing a summary of the issues as a base from which to launch a poll.

You might want to start with my previous collation at http://wiki.hackspace.org.uk:7180/wiki/User:Ms7821/Security_theatre.  I'm slightly concerned that the newly vocal people in this recent iteration will end up unduly influencing the conversation.

I've not been responding to everything here, because the aim of the thread was to get hold of the people who have been turning the cameras off, and we *still* haven't achieved that.  Everything else has been a rehash of previous arguments.

However, I would like to reiterate the previous response to the suggestion that the space is a "safe place" from stalkers.  We're not here to provide a safe house/sanctuary, and it's completely ridiculous to suggest so.

Mark

[Mark Steward]

Erm, that's:

  http://wiki.hackspace.org.uk/wiki/User:Ms7821/Security_theatre

(I'm using lazy port-forwarding because routing to Bitfolk from here seems to be broken).

Mark

[Mark Steward]

I've updated this with the names from this thread that clearly take a position.  Danny, Nicholas, Tim, feel free to add yourselves where you feel appropriate.

It's worth noting artag's suggestion at the bottom about logging IPs - do we have this kind of information on record?  Also, the graph for the number of webcam viewers is:

  http://hack.rs/cacti/graph.php?action=view&local_graph_id=93&rra_id=all

Mark

[Russ Garrett]

On 11 August 2011 16:08, Mark Steward <marks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've updated this with the names from this thread that clearly take a position.  Danny, Nicholas, Tim, feel free to add yourselves where you feel appropriate.
> It's worth noting artag's suggestion at the bottom about logging IPs - do we have this kind of information on record?

How do you tell if an IP is a member or a non-member?

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Monty]

On Aug 11, 10:58 am, Cepmender <cepmen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> As I have stated in previous incarnations of this thread,I personally do not care whether the cameras are there or not and so would consider myself a neutral party in the discussion. 

Aren't you listed in the keep things public group on the wiki page?

[Mark Steward]

Just to get an idea - I was going to see if they could be correlated against IRC.  If it turns out all the addresses are .rr.com or .gov.uk, we'll know randomers are using it.

Mark

[Russ Garrett]

On 11 August 2011 16:41, Mark Steward <marks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to get an idea - I was going to see if they could be correlated against
> IRC.  If it turns out all the addresses are .rr.com or .gov.uk, we'll know
> randomers are using it.

I just counted 110 out of 160 people on IRC who were obviously using
bouncers, web gateways, IPv6, or cloaks. So that method's not going to
work :). At any rate, no we're not logging IP addresses.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[HaywardGB]

Why do you keep asking us (the against crowd) for our opinion or
compromise, when you always go back to your agenda of keeping them
public anyway? Make the damn cameras members only already (that's our
bloody compromise, HELLOOOOOOO!), if prospective members want to see
what the space is like, FLICKR bitch, youtube baby, or whatever else
(hey , why not just turn up and see for yourself, like I did, you know
the kind of shit people did back in the old days.. Its called getting
of your backside!!). What's the difference? At least that way, the
photos and or videos can be taken after advising people in the space
that there'll be a "PUBLIC" photo session going on. Comparing this
argument to that of Home Privacy or Pubs v's Lobbies etc.. Is boring
and pathetic, just do something about it or don't, I'm sick of being
asked what I want done, only to be back here again... Don't ask me or
anyone else for their opinion, unless you're actually going to do
something instead of just being stupid... yeah, stupid!

Peace , Love and Hugs x

[Sam Cook]

I've removed myself from the "members only" column. Mainly in protest, I'd prefer them to be members only but for no strong reason (and it's a preference not a conviction ultimately I couldn't care less). I just want this thread to die.

S

[HaywardGB]

I had a dream that Jonty was my brother - in - law.. and he danced
like a complete twat at my wedding, which was me getting married to
his sister (yes, i'm leeet!).. she had a beard though.. yeah, i was
horrified after waking from this dream .. A girl with a bird, is one
thing, but Jonty as your brohter-in-law, fml! :)

So what we doing about this stupid argument over the cameras then ?

Russ, don't say anything with the words "bike shedding" in it and Tom
Cruise, I've missed you, where you at?

Hugs x

[Martin Klang]

On 12 Aug 2011, at 23:28, HaywardGB wrote:

> So what we doing about this stupid argument over the cameras then ?

Just as you predicted - nawt.
Charles has effectively vetoed the compromise and I believe once again the 'antis' will be ignored, i.e. shat upon.
Rioting and looting to ensue.

/mx

[HaywardGB]

Oh right, a real democracy then, Martin ;) (btw, we need to chat more
about the tour earlier)

Seriously, for the rest of you, I just unplugged the camera in the
quiet room (first time I've done this), because A) I feel no one is
taking my request for privacy seriously and B) This isn't a democracy,
it's pure bullshit! Treat me like a an idiot, and I'll act like one..
Ask me to give you my point of view, ignore me, pretend you give a
shit and I'll give you the finger. Seriously, this has gone on far
enough, grow up! Peace out!

[Russ Garrett]

Hayward,

On 13 August 2011 00:36, HaywardGB <urbans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seriously, for the rest of you, I just unplugged the camera in the
> quiet room (first time I've done this), because A) I feel no one is
> taking my request for privacy seriously and B) This isn't a democracy,
> it's pure bullshit!  Treat me like a an idiot, and I'll act like one..
> Ask me to give you my point of view, ignore me, pretend you give a
> shit and I'll give you the finger.  Seriously, this has gone on far
> enough, grow up! Peace out!

I assume you haven't seen the proposal I made yesterday:

http://groups.google.com/group/london-hack-space/browse_thread/thread/2edf5f36154818f6

If you have, I'm really insulted by the emails you've sent tonight. I
really want to have a cordial solution between all of us, but it seems
like you just want to cause trouble.

Please plug the cameras back in. This kind of mercenary
passive-aggressiveness is really against the Hackspace ethos.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[HaywardGB]

Oh right, your "I'm getting fedup with"... email?

Yeah, I'm the one being passive-aggressive..

I'm out, keep up the good work, President!

On Aug 13, 1:12 am, Russ Garrett <r...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:
> Hayward,
>

> On 13 August 2011 00:36, HaywardGB <urbanskat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Seriously, for the rest of you, I just unplugged the camera in the
> > quiet room (first time I've done this), because A) I feel no one is
> > taking my request for privacy seriously and B) This isn't a democracy,
> > it's pure bullshit!  Treat me like a an idiot, and I'll act like one..
> > Ask me to give you my point of view, ignore me, pretend you give a
> > shit and I'll give you the finger.  Seriously, this has gone on far
> > enough, grow up! Peace out!
>
> I assume you haven't seen the proposal I made yesterday:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/london-hack-space/browse_thread/thread...

>
> If you have, I'm really insulted by the emails you've sent tonight. I
> really want to have a cordial solution between all of us, but it seems
> like you just want to cause trouble.
>
> Please plug the cameras back in. This kind of mercenary
> passive-aggressiveness is really against the Hackspace ethos.
>
> --
> Russ Garrett

> r...@garrett.co.uk

[Russ Garrett]

We've sorted this out, no drama, please :)

Russ

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Martin Klang]

Finally I got the shitcam working -
latest version of OpenCV fixed it!

details on the wiki:
http://wiki.hackspace.org.uk/wiki/Projects/Shitcam

/m

[Cepmender]

So it would seem, not sure why, I have stated in previous postings here that I am indifferent to the cameras. I have also suggested alternative/compromise schemes... this may have given the impression that I am "pro" but really I do not give a (expletive deleted). I would like to see a harmonious resolution though, hence my offer to present the observations of members in an easily digested form and to set up a ballot.  A key part of any CCTV system is a clear statement of it`s purpose and a policy for it`s  use, the level of access to and the length of retention of images. I think this should be agreed if it is decided to keep any part of the system.  If members would like to send a "comment", to me, in the format below , I will write up all the stuff and we might be a bit closer to a solution informed by actual stated concerns rather than vague mutterings. To accommodate those who wish their views to remain anonymous to the list as a whole I will not be naming contributors and comments can be sent direct (i.e. off list) to <cepm...@yahoo.co.uk>  I undertake not to discuss who said what with anyone. With this in mind, please confine your comments to what YOU think, not what others MIGHT think. I have included a few of the more common comments as examples, please replace with your thoughts. Feel free to leave any section blank if you have no particular comment.  Remember the old Yorkshire saying...   "The silent man gets nowt" This is your chance to be heard. 1/ Your overall attitude FOR - AGAINST - INDIFFERENT 2/ Factors you consider to be relevant to the issue. e.g. Against - Expectation of privacy in the space For - Checking if space is crowded is useful Against - Potential abuse by viewers For - Security when space is unoccupied  3/ Suggested compromises e.g. Relocation of cameras Members only access to stream Selective switching of cameras    Policy ( IF system is retained ) 4/ Purpose of system e.g. Surveillance of space for security purposes Allowing potential members to see what we do Allowing wives/girlfriends to see that hubby is really here and not in bar/brothel Detection of equipment abuse 5/ Level of access e.g. Members only  Public access by request Free access to all 6/ Length of image retention Retain for XXX days 7/ Any other observations --- On Thu, 11/8/11, Monty <mont...@gmail.com> wrote:

[danny staple]

1) For having camera's

2) Against - Expectation of privacy in the space (yes of course you can expect privacy in the bloody loos - don't be silly)

   Against - Potential abuse by viewers

   For - Some access control

   For - Security when the space is unoccupied

3) Compromises

For relocation (I don't mind a couple of off camera areas - but they must not contain any expensive equipment or tools)

For members only with shareable token (temporary is fine)

4) Purpose

Surveilence for security

Detecting equipment abuse

Allowing potential members/visitors asking on IRC to see what's going on (although more pictures/youtube stuff would mean this is less necessary).

Checking up to see if anyone is in the space before actually turning up (although IRC is good if most people in the space are using it)

5) Level of Access

Members only

Public access by request

6) Length of retention

2/3 days for the security/preventing abuse purposes. Not for public review though. Also - potentially for seminars/sessions where they would have liked to record it (these cameras don't do sound - so perhaps that is never going to work anyway).

---

Good call Cepmender - nice to get clarity on the whole thing.

--
Danny Staple

Director, ODM Solutions Ltd
w: http://www.odmsolutions.co.uk
Blog: http://orionrobots.co.uk/blog1-Danny-Staple

[Martin Dittus]

I hope you're joking?

m.

[Charles Yarnold]

Not sure it this is sarcasm, but I have given my honest opinion. We work on consensus, if the consensus is the compromise without the low quality bandwidth public streams is the way forward I dont expect to be able to veto it. In the same way as I would not expect one person to be able to veto a consensus another way.

Sol

[Martin Dittus]

I'm told that this is most likely an elaborate joke. In that case, kudos. You got me :)

m.

[Martin Klang]

On 13 Aug 2011, at 11:55, Charles Yarnold wrote:

> We work on consensus, if the consensus is the compromise without the low quality bandwidth public streams is the way forward I dont expect to be able to veto it. In the same way as I would not expect one person to be able to veto a consensus another way.

My understanding of the process is that yes, one person can veto any proposal by objecting to it. Standard consensus decision making.
Basically this;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Consensus-flowchart.png

Maybe I've got it wrong. Is there a formal hackspace decision making process?

I'm used to organising in groups where this is done (as per the flowchart), perhaps that's why I assumed that's what's meant here by consensus.

/m

[Martin Dittus]

In my personal opinion the grownup thing to do is to realise when to give in and compromise. At our size we can't expect that everyone's happy with every decision that is made. It falls on every single one of us to treat others respectfully, and to remain constructive in our discourse. More important than being right is making sure that the space and the community work.

In other words, I don't have much respect for creating conflict for conflict's sake. We all just want to get shit done.

m.

[Martin Klang]

On 13 Aug 2011, at 16:43, Martin Dittus wrote:

> In my personal opinion the grownup thing to do is to realise when to give in and compromise.

yes, agreed!

> On 13 Aug 2011, at 16:36, Martin Klang wrote:

>> My understanding of the process is that yes, one person can veto any proposal by objecting to it.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that anyone should!

/m

[Philip McGaw]

see below:

-- 

Philip McGaw
Phi...@McGaw.eu

No trees were killed to send this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

1/ Your overall attitude

Indifferent, but prefer them to be there.

2/ Factors you consider to be relevant to the issue. e.g.

NA

3/ Suggested compromises e.g

reduced resolution public feed (¿time delay of 30mins?), and high res members only

Policy ( IF system is retained ) 4/ Purpose of system e.g.

Surveillance of space for security purposes Allowing potential members to see what we do Allowing wives/girlfriends to see that hubby is really here and not in bar/brothel Detection of equipment abuse

those four make sense

5/ Level of access e.g.

Free access to all - see point three

6/ Length of image retention Retain for XXX days

28 days,

7/ Any other observations

This is argument is getting old; can it please be concluded ASAP

[Martin Dittus]

No need to reply further, this discussion has been resolved with a workable compromise.

As of Saturday we're now testing a new approach: members-only access, with a public feed that is only updated every hour. Cf. the "Ultimatum" thread.

m.