While I've not been actively looking, I've never noticed any UPS or
backup power to any of the computers in the space. One of these is
running the security cameras, isn't it? And none of the computers have
any physical protection, do they?
Are the video records stored locally too? Because it strikes me that
having the video record of any potential theft stored on one of the
items likely to be stolen isn't a very secure idea. And we'd loose
recording capacity in the event of a power cut.
And with the non-member-readable mailing list talking about the fire
exit doors being left open and purchases of expensive equipment.. The
major security componant seems to be the space being occupied most of
the time.
While most thefts are crimes of opportunity, how secure is the camera
feed? Could a non-member access them to tell when the space is empty?
Perhaps we should also look into some form of security-marking for
equipment if it hasn't been done already? Possibly associating with
asset-tags could help track what's owned by the space and what's on
loan? Quick-ref colour-code, etc.
Just throwing up some paranoid thoughts. ;)
~ Sci
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNrLpbAAoJEFC0IFCMVnKKCP0H/0e87fQ/btTY0w/hdJXksKXw
Mn4+0kPCO8mRQDjkzAPQuHVRay7SNDoGozMG6hresas5MvLxirccP1chNWIo10Vm
e9s/8P3BbHHLd+tpG5J1cFM55Q3nqJLnvR6Sw7leEDlyhaD1cjtNwO7+JMDgO4Rr
o0u44w88OOGGEABLg+r/rZH6I9PbiPEA6zqm2miUONYEZzsmYvjahosIR2PLTTco
xf6OOZqG8LEeF7HFGayL7i4imznBUko6/bnNMVSWlZdr3RCp4expS1O/Fp0lsE0H
yrdU2AqeSgNGrwwR4JQIGdVtsmkRBvj8BJJzgTekHPVkzO7zJZpyEs1QSqDGkig=
=Q75Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The only one of your questions I know the answer to is that yes, the
video feeds are available to anyone cunning enough to look at the
webcams page on the wiki, which is linked from the front page. Eek.
--
Katie Sutton
http://tajasel.org
"The ‘Net is a waste of time, and that’s exactly what’s right about
it." ~ William Gibson
While I've not been actively looking, I've never noticed any UPS or
backup power to any of the computers in the space. One of these is
running the security cameras, isn't it? And none of the computers have
any physical protection, do they?
Are the video records stored locally too? Because it strikes me that
having the video record of any potential theft stored on one of the
items likely to be stolen isn't a very secure idea. And we'd loose
recording capacity in the event of a power cut.
And with the non-member-readable mailing list talking about the fire
exit doors being left open and purchases of expensive equipment.. The
major security componant seems to be the space being occupied most of
the time.
While most thefts are crimes of opportunity, how secure is the camera
feed? Could a non-member access them to tell when the space is empty?
Perhaps we should also look into some form of security-marking for
equipment if it hasn't been done already? Possibly associating with
asset-tags could help track what's owned by the space and what's on
loan? Quick-ref colour-code, etc.
Just throwing up some paranoid thoughts. ;)
I'm not worried personally about Babbage being stolen. Charles did very kindly host offsite recordings for a while, but his server seems to be down at the moment. Perhaps we could look into making that more permanent.
i'd not consider myself paranoid, but just not a big fan of 24/7 footage of myself on the net...that's a privacy issue, somehow.and by the way i'm amused that some other people here have a problem with "big brother" (or sister) spying on us, too. thought it's only me.
probably uk the cctv nation don't care anymore,but in germany were we haven't got used to be on cam more than 300 times a day we wouldn't let other people allow to watch us freely.
i don't know how a security issue like public webcams goes along with hacker ethos and finding security leaks...
our leak seems to be wanted so i chose to hide behind sunglasses to make my point as there seems to be nothing else i could do.
and it p* me off when i sit on the sofas and someone is always pointing the camera in my direction watching my screen even after i pointed it elsewhere. not funny.
The cameras are not intended to be fully public - I'm not sure when
they were added to the wiki. but they are intended for members to use
along with occasional guests to the space who we give the link to on
IRC.
I think someone who is clever enough to find the cameras is not the
kind of person we are trying to stop accessing the space. Bear in mind
that someone could simply pay £5 for a month's membership and be able
to waltz in and take anything at any point.
The cameras make me slightly uncomfortable too, but it's clear that
they are useful as a way of encouraging members to engage with the
space. They are not really a security device - it's a complete pain to
convict people on the strength of blurry camera evidence.
Perhaps we should make them members-only?
--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk
The cameras make me slightly uncomfortable too, but it's clear that
they are useful as a way of encouraging members to engage with the
space. They are not really a security device - it's a complete pain to
convict people on the strength of blurry camera evidence.
Perhaps we should make them members-only?
I think the only way my better half would let me out to the Space at
10:30pm last Friday for an introductory tour was that she could watch
me on the webcams!
As a new member (well I will be once the standing order has been
recognised) though I was a bit perturbed when I turned up on Saturday
and found the front door wide open which would have been seen on the
front door cam had anybody been bothered to stake out the webcams for
hours on end.
Luke
I've removed all references from the wiki. Unfortunately, there are still various links around on the web.Mark
If nobody objects, I can probably secure the page on the hackspace
site fairly easily so they're only accessible by paying members.
--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk
If it is not too much trouble, it'd be nice if the webcam link was
shareable. E.g. the link changes (long and hard to guess) per time
period. You login and can get the link and share it with another
person for a time period.
This would allow vistors to know whether the hackspace was occupied/
busy if they were thinking of coming for a look, and get some idea of
the space.
I spied on you all for a while when I was deciding on whether to get
involved or not. Made turning upto the place for the first time so
much less daunting. Security wise there may be a point, but on balance
id rather we were open and friendly than paranoid and closed.
I don't buy the privacy argument. I expect privacy in my own home,
private membership clubs, not in a community building which is (in
practical terms) more or less open to the public.
Renski
I personally don't have any problems with privacy at the space, but for
those that do I would prefer a generated link that is valid for a
certain time period (e.g. 24h from generation), perhaps via an
expiration datestamp and signature in the URL to avoid having to store
anything.
D
As apparently this is the appropriate way to voice my opinion on these matters.
-1 for members only.
I spied on you all for a while when I was deciding on whether to get
involved or not. Made turning upto the place for the first time so
much less daunting. Security wise there may be a point, but on balance
id rather we were open and friendly than paranoid and closed.
I don't buy the privacy argument. I expect privacy in my own home,
private membership clubs, not in a community building which is (in
practical terms) more or less open to the public.
OK, well there have been objections, so the status quo remains. That
said, if this was a vote, I would vote +1.
Firstly, this is not a security argument, it's about privacy alone.
I don't think people should have to justify why they shouldn't be on a
publicly-visible camera feed. People have a right to a certain amount
of privacy, even in a public space. (And I don't particularly consider
Hackspace a public space.) I know the cameras make some people feel
uncomfortable, and I don't really see why we should intentionally do
that for some minor perceived benefit.
It's a bit of a truism now, but there does seem to be a peculiarly
British attitude of not caring about cameras. People I've spoken to
from hackerspaces around the world have been a bit taken aback by the
scope of our public camera feeds. I find being visible to anyone on
the Internet a bit creepy, and I'm sure I'm not the only person with
that view.
As for the "new member" arguments: if people have to look at the
cameras to get an impression of what the space is like, then that's a
pretty shit impression. We should improve the photos we have of the
space. If people need to know if someone's around to visit the space,
I'd rather see them turn up at a scheduled event or get in contact
with a member on IRC. It's less faceless that way.
--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk
I guess having to pass the field of view of uncountable unaccountable
cameras just to get to the space, will create that attitude. C'est la
vie in London.
Luke
I didn't even realise we could control where the cameras point...
--
Katie Sutton
http://tajasel.org
"The ‘Net is a waste of time, and that’s exactly what’s right about
it." ~ William Gibson
ok, i confess, i'm paranoid. :P
On 19 April 2011 12:07, Russ Garrett <ru...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:
> If nobody objects, I can probably secure the page on the hackspace > site fairly easily so they're only accessible by paying members. >OK, well there have been objections, so the status quo remains. That >said, if this was a vote, I would vote +1.
+1 members only and a required login to the cam page with your member password
>Firstly, this is not a security argument, it's about privacy alone.
both privacy and security i'd say.
''CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness. It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security.[1]
>I don't think people should have to justify why they shouldn't be on a
>publicly-visible camera feed. People have a right to a certain amount
>of privacy, even in a public space. (And I don't particularly consider
>Hackspace a public space.) I know the cameras make some people feel
>uncomfortable, and I don't really see why we should intentionally do
>that for some minor perceived benefit.
>It's a bit of a truism now, but there does seem to be a peculiarly
>British attitude of not caring about cameras. People I've spoken to
>from hackerspaces around the world have been a bit taken aback by the
>scope of our public camera feeds. I find being visible to anyone on
>the Internet a bit creepy, and I'm sure I'm not the only person with
>that view.
thanks, russ - that's exactly what i'm thinking.
>As for the "new member" arguments: if people have to look at the >cameras to get an impression of what the space is like, then that's a >pretty shit impression. We should improve the photos we have of the >space. If people need to know if someone's around to visit the space, >I'd rather see them turn up at a scheduled event or get in contact >with a member on IRC. It's less faceless that way.
i used to dj at a weekly online radio show with an occasional live cam stream - and was kind of ok with being watched as this was a show we put on to entertain people. the whole show was quite interactive and you could see who is listening and could have a chat on the irc too. maybe the forementioned indication of who is watching could make it all a bit less of just some anonymous stalking. but i think this should all be still limited - a 24/7 big brother style coverage is what i don't support - be it in TV or my favourite hackspace.
ok i'll stop being negative, more sunny thoughts on such a sunny tuesday... :)
if webcams should be involved in giving a good impression of the awesomeness of the hackspace how about: - occasional live streams of workshops for members (or non-members) to educate or entertain people? i think some of our members have some experience with filming and tv shows to make it even look really cool.
open for more thoughts,
L(ots)O(f)L(ove)
chris aka layer.1.gfx
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6081549/One-crime-solved-for-every-1000-CCTV-cameras-senior-officer-claims.html
>I don't think people should have to justify why they shouldn't be on a >publicly-visible camera feed. People have a right to a certain amount >of privacy, even in a public space. (And I don't particularly consider >Hackspace a public space.) I know the cameras make some people feel >uncomfortable, and I don't really see why we should intentionally do >that for some minor perceived benefit.
Peeping through a window doesn't create a permanent record of someone
vomiting on Jonty's shoes.
Brendan
quality of the cams aside, i wouldn't buy the "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be worried about being filmed" way of thinking i heard here in the uk so often.
>I appreciate that both can be used the wrong way .. but I think it's the intent that makes the difference to me, not the actuality.
i understand that.but leave it until the day when you are not happy about the way it has been used. what happens then?we are now in control of the way things in the space - like cctv cams - are used.
replace them with a real CCTV system limited to directors or something.
Hows this for an alternative technical solution?
Members are given access to allow them to disable the camera for a period of time (say 6 hours). Feeds can still be stored for security so this cant be abused and timed with a theft.
Renski
So totally fine with the camera's as they are now - and personally I find that they also do very positive outreach,
Dw.
This is exactly what I was planning on saying, almost word for word.
-1 for members only, and -1 for getting rid of the cams.
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:34:38 +0100, Katie Sutton <ka...@tajasel.org> wrote:
> On 20 April 2011 10:12, Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>
> wrote:
>> For the record - I have no expectation of real privacy in the hack
>> space - for me it is sort of a public/shared space. With all the
>> responsibilities and rights that comes with (such as keeping it clean,
>> pleasant, welcoming and open).
>>
>> So totally fine with the camera's as they are now - and personally I
>> find that they also do very positive outreach,
>>
>> Dw.
>
> This is exactly what I was planning on saying, almost word for word.
>
> -1 for members only, and -1 for getting rid of the cams.
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
I've personally decided to ignore them, but I understand people who find it more difficult to do so.
Reasons they are a pain:
- Not everyone likes to be on camera
- Leads to surveillance culture: as soon as something's happened (graffiti, mess), the knee-jerk response is always going to be 'let's check the cameras!'.
- Difficult to explain to outsiders (especially non-brits) why they are used. Frankly, there are easier and less indiscreet ways to tell if someone's in.
- There is _always_ a power differential with cameras, of being in front or behind. Having the capability to look as well as be seen does not change this.
I imagine the reason that the cameras are there and used the way they are is that the LHS inevitably reflects society around it: CCTV, FIT teams, reality tv, online peep-shows et c. The big-brother trend is one I happen to see as detrimental, and I would have much preferred to see the group distance itself from it rather than so wholeheartedly embrace it (dude, let's make them remote controlled - and public!!).
And yes, there is a difference between being seen through a window and a camera. Consider the camera a one-way mirror, and the person behind it is filming you. Some find that a bit creepy.
/m
I think there's two issues here. The first is security and I think
maybe there's a bit of overconfidence in the abilites of the camera
here. Basically if we get done over having a grainy, low-res image of
the top of someones's head isn't going to be a great help. Even if we
do get a good shot of someone's face, it's hardly going to make it on to
Crimewatch. Most likely it'll be sent to the plod who will stach it in
the bottom of a filing cabinate in a disused lavatory with a sign on
the door reading "beware of the leopard". Further, anyone using the
cameras to decide of the Space is empty or not is likely to be targeting
us specifically and I doubt defeating the camera system will be beond
the wit of these people.
The second issue is one of privacy. There is a difference between being
on film and being seen in person. Annonymity being one, the other being
the perminency of anyone recording the feed. I do doubt very much that
anyone getting pissed on party night, getting their cock out and singing
My Way very much wants to see the event appearing on FaceTube.
If people want to see what is happening in the space, perhaps we could
go with the old fashioned picture gallery where people can opt in or out
of the lense at that given moment.
Finally, didn't the Levellers write a song about CCTV?
Mike.
Reading back on this thread the main arguments in favor of the webcams
is that they:
1. Allow members to engage with the space remotely,
2. Allow non-members to see if the space is empty,
3. Makes the space more open/welcoming/less daunting for non-members.
1 is certainly valid, though wouldn't be affected by making the cameras
members-only.
The space is almost eternally occupied these days, and given that you'd
need to be on IRC to find the webcam links as a non-member anyway it's
not unreasonable to expect people to ask there.
I accept 3 may be true, but plenty of people have joined without ever
looking at the webcams, and having proper pictures of the space is
probably a better way to present ourselves to prospective members.
Personally I disagree with the argument that they've always been present
ever since we got the first space. While this is certainly true, I
think people are willing to compromise on an issue like this as the
space can never be perfect for any single person.
The number of webcams has also grown over time, and the newer ones are
also moveable which further moves the power towards the watchers.
If it were up to me I would propose making the cameras members-only,
just having a stationary camera in the main area and one pointing at the
front door, and making the webcams just a static image that has to be
refreshed to update. That way members can still engage with what is
going on in the space, and there are areas that members who don't like
being on camera can feel comfortable.
Robert
Martin, you have managed to articulate my thoughts about cameras much
better than I did.
I don't think "they've always been there" is a good argument to retain
the status quo. And we have no indication of how many people the
cameras may have silently deterred.
Finally, I don't think the cameras are a good security feature, beyond
any deterrent effect.
--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk
And we have no indication of how many people the
cameras may have silently deterred.
On 21 April 2011 16:08, Martin Klang <ma...@pingdynasty.com> wrote:
> - Difficult to explain to outsiders (especially non-brits) why they are used. Frankly, there are easier and less indiscreet ways to tell if someone's in.
I don't care whether the feed is restricted to members or not.
hello,
after a long discussion it would be great to see something like an outcome.
i suggest the following:
why not use a proper voting system to have a democratic decision?
if the outcome shows that the majority of our members are happy with being filmed and/or don't care at all i would shrug and accept it but i hope to get at least offered an alternative like:
the chance to have a cctv-free corner in the space
or that for instance the quiet room would be turned back into a camera-less room - as it has been when i joined the hackspace...
further, i'd like to remind that nothing has been done so far to deal with the issue that our webcam links are still public ...
as far as i understood a couple of members felt uneasy about it or even have been stalked by their boss etc.
i do hope that "to wait until nobody talks anymore about an issue and then do nothing about it" is NOT the way we deal with serious concerns of our members in the hackspace.
so far - as the cameras are still in use as before - i feel ignored and i'm one step away from finding another hackspace i can use freely without worrying about being filmed 24/7.
with friendly regards,
your pain in the hacker-cam system,
C
Just a small note that the quiet room has had a camera in it since before it was the quiet room, and was the workshop. (Not commenting on if that should continue or not, just that the point it used to not have one is incorrect)
Sol
hello,after a long discussion it would be great to see something like an outcome.i suggest the following:
why not use a proper voting system to have a democratic decision?
if the outcome shows that the majority of our members are happy with being filmed and/or don't care at all i would shrug and accept it but i hope to get at least offered an alternative like:the chance to have a cctv-free corner in the space
or that for instance the quiet room would be turned back into a camera-less room - as it has been when i joined the hackspace...
further, i'd like to remind that nothing has been done so far to deal with the issue that our webcam links are still public ...
as far as i understood a couple of members felt uneasy about it or even have been stalked by their boss etc.
i do hope that "to wait until nobody talks anymore about an issue and then do nothing about it" is NOT the way we deal with serious concerns of our members in the hackspace.
so far - as the cameras are still in use as before - i feel ignored and i'm one step away from finding another hackspace i can use freely without worrying about being filmed 24/7.
Cheers,
Brendan
This is what I proposed about 50 messages ago and I received strong
disagreement from at least five people. So unfortunately we can't say
that this is the consensus opinion.
--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk
Have the robocam in the arch between the lobby and main room, and the
static camera in the quiet room.
This should allow people to engage with the space (would cover workshops,
things moving in and out of the space, and some amount of desk space
[especially when we finish moving the kitchen]), and would also provide
privacy for the sitting down social area and half of the main area desk
space.
Robert
2/ No coverage at all of quiet room. This on the basis that there is
nothing of interest to see here for most of the time. If a live stream of
a talk or other event is required then a temporary cam can be brought in
and set up for best coverage.
3/ Workshop cam to remain as is. Lots of things happen in here that make
interesting viewing for members and guests alike. This is also for both
safety and security.
4/ Pan/tilt cam in quiet room to be moved to main room and mounted on
ceiling above entrance from lobby. Movement to be restricted to cover
area to the left of the entrance. This gives a view of most of the cool
things that are going on while leaving a private area to the right of the
picture of Mmlle. Lovelace. Alternatively, a fixed cam with the same view
could provide a less intrusive solution and free up the pan/tilt one for
"show and tell" use.
5/ Outside door cam be relocated to balcony area looking east to give
foreign viewers a different vista of our wonderful city. With the cam
looking at the door as per 1/ above anyone entering will be clearly
viewed. so making the outside one redundant. The current view is near
useless anyway.
The above leaves a large area that is out of reach of the web viewer
without significantly affecting the publicity/safety value of the system.
This scheme should balance our desire to show the space off to the world,
maintain surveillance for security and provide a degree of privacy for
those members who are uncomfortable with being scrutinised too closely. It
is also a lot less complicated and confusing than having individual
members switching things on or off at random.
Another advantage is that it is impossible for the public to see when the
space is unoccupied (I believe this was the concern that started this
thread .... )
Phil
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:25:05 +0100, SheraDreaming <killas...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Ok, a shot in the dark combining several of these suggestions.
Proposal:
-Cams stay, but are moved to a configuration such as that Robert
suggests in his Apr 23 / 8:27pm post so that there are spots of
permanent privacy
-People in-space have the ability to turn the streaming from the
cameras off for periods of 4 hours at a time, or some other length of
time deemed "average length of stay"
-The full stream is saved somewhere (non-public) in case it is needed
for security.
Additional ideas:
-is it possible to do what Google does with its maps, and blank out
people's faces on a delayed stream or still? Everybody wins?
-if people like the proposal at the top of this post, perhaps the
doorbot system could somehow be programmed so that when certain people
arrive at the space, a signal is automatically sent to opt out of
streaming for the 4 hours, as proposed? Then those people will always
be relaxed knowing it is taken care of.
5/ Outside door cam be relocated to balcony area looking east to give foreign viewers a different vista of our wonderful city. With the cam looking at the door as per 1/ above anyone entering will be clearly viewed. so making the outside one redundant. The current view is near useless anyway.
Have a supply of paper bags by the door.
Any one not wanting to be on camera can take one, poke two eye holes and
place on head.
Complete anonymity!!!
Would also make some members more attractive.
Phil
I think most members are reasonable enough that this won't be an issue.
In any case I think a fair position would be "You may ask a member to
move if you wish to sit in the private area, but they are under no
obligation to do so."
Most of the time the space is not busy enough that this would be a
problem at all.
>
> >
> > -People in-space have the ability to turn the streaming from the
> > cameras off for periods of 4 hours at a time, or some other length of
> > time deemed "average length of stay"
> >
>
> Then should those wanting the cameras have the choice to turn them on for
> such a period too?
>
> > -if people like the proposal at the top of this post, perhaps the
> > doorbot system could somehow be programmed so that when certain people
> > arrive at the space, a signal is automatically sent to opt out of
> > streaming for the 4 hours, as proposed? Then those people will always
> > be relaxed knowing it is taken care of.
> >
>
> Again, the same for those who do want them.
I agree - the idea of having a facility whereby the cameras can be
disabled while certain people are in the space (or vice versa) seems to
me to be neither a fair compromise, nor particular feasible.
Robert
Ha-ha, win!
Sent from my Android, please excuse typos and spelling errors.
On Apr 25, 2011 10:35 AM, <cepm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
It`s easy!!!
Have a supply of paper bags by the door.
Any one not wanting to be on camera can take one, poke two eye holes and place on head.
Complete anonymity!!!
Would also make some members more attractive.
Phil
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:24:02 +0100, Charles Yarnold <charles...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 Ap...
Any objections to Phil's suggestion?
Since it's trivial to do, shall we change the link to the webcams page? In its own form of the Streisand effect, my reference to the page has unfortunately now created 3 more. There are still no direct links to the webcam streams, and we should do our best to ensure it stays that way.
> I would argue that there is no difference in interesting things that happen between the 2 desk rooms, and don't see why the quiet room should be camera free. (and my previous objection to moving the door cam)
what are you _looking at_ on those cameras???
what are these interesting things that happen
- grainy images of people using laptops?
clearly missing out on something here.
someone please tell me an interesting thing they've seen in the quiet room, on the webcam.
cheers,
/mx
To provide an area that people who are uncomfortable with being on
camera can sit.
----
Frankly, I find it absolutley shocking that there is so much
unwillingness to make a small concession in order that the space be
a nicer environment for some members.
What is the reason for the _entire_ space needing to be covered by
webcams?
Would any other arrangement whereby a portion of the space is not
included in the cameras range be acceptable?
Robert
On 25 April 2011 17:46, Mark Steward <marks...@gmail.com> wrote:Any objections to Phil's suggestion?I would argue that there is no difference in interesting things that happen between the 2 desk rooms, and don't see why the quiet room should be camera free. (and my previous objection to moving the door cam)
Frankly, I find it absolutley shocking that there is so muchunwillingness to make a small concession in order that the space be
a nicer environment for some members.
This re. quiet room being workspace/somewhere to go without interruption is a v good point. Even if we can't agree on cameras not being there for privacy I hope we can agree on that.
I want the cameras to stay but don't care if cameras are public or not, personally.
Happy to throw my vote to no camp as the point about security/stopping people making sure space is empty for nefarious purposes is a good one.
Also happy for quiet room to be off camera, as explained above.
--
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse terseness, brevity and top-posting.
However, I think this might be an acceptable compromise.
Robert
On 2011-04-25, Charles Yarnold wrote:
> On 21 April 2011 17:51, Russ Garrett <ru...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:
> And we have no indication of how many people the
> cameras may have silently deterred.
> Or encouraged to come...
+1 on that (speaking just for myself).
Dw.
I'd like the quiet room to remain covered by a webcam. I've used the
cameras before to check that there's desk space available before heading
over; switching to partial or no coverage would thwart that use-case.
[As an aside, given that I haven't voiced an on-list opinion yet: I have no
problem with being on-camera in the space, and think the cameras should
stay and remain publicly accessible.]
--
Alex Pounds .~. http://www.alexpounds.com/
/V\ http://www.ethicsgirls.com/
// \\
"Variables won't; Constants aren't" /( )\
^`~'^
> Moving the main cam towards the loos by a few tiles, this would make the solder station and the table next to it, and most of the double desk closest to the new kitchen off cam.
Wouldn't this create contention between those who wish to solder and those that want 'privacy'?
Those calling for sticking with the status quo should remember that
people currently turn off or obscure the cameras when they don't want
to be seen (myself included) and hopefully remember to reenable them
once they leave. I think the status is not quo.
Short term I'd like to see:
* autogenerated decaying links for non-members (perhaps produced in
IRC automatically either by anyone or ops)
* members have full unadulterated access
Longer term I'd like to see some way of disabling the camera in your
room on a 1 hour timer. Or something.
I've personally had an argument with another member of the space
because I didn't want to be filmed and put something in front of the
camera for a bit, and s/he didn't think I had the right to do so. It
wasn't nice.
Wouldn't mind having people watch my hands as I practise my bad soldering skills or watch circuits on the oscilloscope.
m.