A Path Forward on the Lab Cameras
181 views
Skip to first unread message
Sheldon McGee
Aug 13, 2025, 12:45:48 PMAug 13
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com, HSL Board Email
Hi everyone,
The board acknowledges the recent, passionate discussion regarding the lab's public-facing cameras. It's clear there are strong, valid perspectives on all sides of this issue, from members who value the cameras' convenience to those who have serious safety and privacy concerns.
To ensure a safe and stable environment while we determine a permanent solution, the board has temporarily disabled all public-facing camera feeds. These cameras are now functionally offline to external access. This is a temporary measure to allow for a calm and structured community process.
Moving forward, any system that makes camera feeds accessible to members requires a formal proposal and a binding community vote. To that end, we will be scheduling a dedicated community meeting to discuss all possible solutions, including:
- Restoring the cameras with new rules.
- Implementing a different system (like timed snapshots with 5 minute delays or AI blurring, the boxes, etc).
Our goal is to facilitate a fair process that allows our community to come together around a supported solution.
Sincerely,
The Heatsync Labs Board of Directors
The board acknowledges the recent, passionate discussion regarding the lab's public-facing cameras. It's clear there are strong, valid perspectives on all sides of this issue, from members who value the cameras' convenience to those who have serious safety and privacy concerns.
To ensure a safe and stable environment while we determine a permanent solution, the board has temporarily disabled all public-facing camera feeds. These cameras are now functionally offline to external access. This is a temporary measure to allow for a calm and structured community process.
Moving forward, any system that makes camera feeds accessible to members requires a formal proposal and a binding community vote. To that end, we will be scheduling a dedicated community meeting to discuss all possible solutions, including:
- Restoring the cameras with new rules.
- Implementing a different system (like timed snapshots with 5 minute delays or AI blurring, the boxes, etc).
Our goal is to facilitate a fair process that allows our community to come together around a supported solution.
Sincerely,
The Heatsync Labs Board of Directors
Message has been deleted
Cprossu
Aug 14, 2025, 2:57:35 PMAug 14
to HeatSync Labs
Greetings! I joined the lab in/around early 2016 and the issues surrounding the publicly accessible viewable cameras were still a contentious issue even back then.
I actually have experienced both sides of the coin personally at this point, that is to say having them be useful in their previous form where you could identify someone (seeing someone I was collaborating with and unable to contact due to my phone at the time dying), and also being creeped out when someone who was a little too touchy feel-ly with me who I was actively avoiding zoomed into the lab after seeing me on the lab cust to come up behind me and give me a slap on the back.
I would rather not have another experience like that or have anyone else be stalked by the camera system. I really did like the idea of having AI altered camera views, but that also comes with it's own concerns.
My first concern is based on the older implementation of the system I was familiar with, I did one stint running ops for the lab, I am fairly sure that due to the way the web camera system was installed there is a proxy address to which unless it's been modified forwards the direct feed from the cameras out to the WAN, so if you know where to point your web browser it is my fear you might be able to see the raw video feed from any of the webcams which are a part of that system and bypass the computer vision/ai system which was implemented to lesson privacy concerns. One would have to rework the backend sysytems and some firewall settings to prevent this, which probably also means modifying the AI solution so it can pull the camera streams locally if it's not going through the proxy.
My second concern is that no matter which AI model or LLM is selected raw video will still have to be processed by these systems in order to alter it. If we are using a cloud service for this there exists the possibility that the publicly facing portions of this could be modified, hacked, or used with malicious intent. If it were up to me I would want this specific task to be completed by a LLM/AI system running locally which had was locked down as to not require external connection via the internet for any of it's tasks other than the input of the source video and output of the altered video.
I would rather not have another experience like that or have anyone else be stalked by the camera system. I really did like the idea of having AI altered camera views, but that also comes with it's own concerns.
My first concern is based on the older implementation of the system I was familiar with, I did one stint running ops for the lab, I am fairly sure that due to the way the web camera system was installed there is a proxy address to which unless it's been modified forwards the direct feed from the cameras out to the WAN, so if you know where to point your web browser it is my fear you might be able to see the raw video feed from any of the webcams which are a part of that system and bypass the computer vision/ai system which was implemented to lesson privacy concerns. One would have to rework the backend sysytems and some firewall settings to prevent this, which probably also means modifying the AI solution so it can pull the camera streams locally if it's not going through the proxy.
My second concern is that no matter which AI model or LLM is selected raw video will still have to be processed by these systems in order to alter it. If we are using a cloud service for this there exists the possibility that the publicly facing portions of this could be modified, hacked, or used with malicious intent. If it were up to me I would want this specific task to be completed by a LLM/AI system running locally which had was locked down as to not require external connection via the internet for any of it's tasks other than the input of the source video and output of the altered video.
I have been guilty of kicking this can down the road, and I would like to point out it's been a constant source of contention from very early on and predates my existence of the space. Given all I have been through, I could care less if we have these cameras.
For some history and discourse from earlier in our existence:
Luis Montes
Aug 14, 2025, 3:13:54 PMAug 14
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, Cpro. Was hoping for this sort of feedback.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 11:57 AM Cprossu <cpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings! I joined the lab in/around early 2016 and the issues surrounding the publicly accessible viewable cameras were still a contentious issue even back then.I actually have experienced both sides of the coin personally at this point, that is to say having them be useful in their previous form where you could identify someone (seeing someone I was collaborating with and unable to contact due to my phone at the time dying), and also being creeped out when someone who was a little too touchy feel-ly with me who I was actively avoiding zoomed into the lab after seeing me on the lab cust to come up behind me and give me a slap on the back.
I would rather not have another experience like that or have anyone else be stalked by the camera system. I really did like the idea of having AI altered camera views, but that also comes with it's own concerns.
My first concern is based on the older implementation of the system I was familiar with, I did one stint running ops for the lab, I am fairly sure that due to the way the web camera system was installed there is a proxy address to which unless it's been modified forwards the direct feed from the cameras out to the WAN, so if you know where to point your web browser it is my fear you might be able to see the raw video feed from any of the webcams which are a part of that system and bypass the computer vision/ai system which was implemented to lesson privacy concerns. One would have to rework the backend sysytems and some firewall settings to prevent this, which probably also means modifying the AI solution so it can pull the camera streams locally if it's not going through the proxy.
I'd like to go even a step further than just keeping them LAN-only. Let's put them on a VLAN so that way someone can't just drop a pi or something into a corner of the lab and turn it into a jump box to get access.
My second concern is that no matter which AI model or LLM is selected raw video will still have to be processed by these systems in order to alter it. If we are using a cloud service for this there exists the possibility that the publicly facing portions of this could be modified, hacked, or used with malicious intent. If it were up to me I would want this specific task to be completed by a LLM/AI system running locally which had was locked down as to not require external connection via the internet for any of it's tasks other than the input of the source video and output of the altered video.
The processing is currently happening on a desktop PC with an nvidia gpu next to the server rack. It just sends the shapes detected out to the cloud so the website UI can pick it up and draw to the screen. The AI desktop doesn't send any images out. The current implementation is only using about 3GB of the 8GB of VRAM from the card. We could do even more computation without having to send images out.
I have been guilty of kicking this can down the road, and I would like to point out it's been a constant source of contention from very early on and predates my existence of the space. Given all I have been through, I could care less if we have these cameras.
For some history and discourse from earlier in our existence:On Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 9:45:48 AM UTC-7 smc...@heatsynclabs.org wrote:Hi everyone,
The board acknowledges the recent, passionate discussion regarding the lab's public-facing cameras. It's clear there are strong, valid perspectives on all sides of this issue, from members who value the cameras' convenience to those who have serious safety and privacy concerns.
To ensure a safe and stable environment while we determine a permanent solution, the board has temporarily disabled all public-facing camera feeds. These cameras are now functionally offline to external access. This is a temporary measure to allow for a calm and structured community process.
Moving forward, any system that makes camera feeds accessible to members requires a formal proposal and a binding community vote. To that end, we will be scheduling a dedicated community meeting to discuss all possible solutions, including:
- Restoring the cameras with new rules.
- Implementing a different system (like timed snapshots with 5 minute delays or AI blurring, the boxes, etc).
Our goal is to facilitate a fair process that allows our community to come together around a supported solution.
Sincerely,
The Heatsync Labs Board of Directors
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/139a4ce6-598e-46d4-acb8-56ca82433872n%40googlegroups.com.
Chris McLaughlin
Aug 14, 2025, 3:45:59 PMAug 14
to HeatSync Labs
Hello my fine fellow lab-ites.
I am happy that this is finally coming to a head.
Let me start by saying that The cameras have no effect on me either way.
I have looked at them to see if I could use the lasers.
But I also know that there are those who value their privacy.
I have been a part of discussions about this topic since I started coming here.
I think that I might have have a possible solution.
The lab is open to the public for certain hours of the day.
During those hours, there is no real expectation of privacy in the lab.
Anyone can walk in off of the streets and use the equipment.
With that being said, (as long as there is notification,) the web cameras make sense.
However there is a lot of time that we are not open to the public and can be host to private events and members with keys.
The cameras do not make as much sense then.
If we can limit the camera availability to open public hours it may solve our issues.
Those who want to host/attend classes in privacy can do so while the cameras are offline.
This would require that NO ONE has access to those cameras during the nonpublic times.
IE no work around, backdoors, bypasses. NOTHING.
Of course I may be way off base.
I do not think there is a way to make everyone happy in regards to this topic.
We did vote as a lab to keep the cameras. It was a majority vote and passed clearly.
But because it will continue to be an issue for some either way, we need to finalize this.
I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on the subject and hope you all do as well.
I am happy that this is finally coming to a head.
Let me start by saying that The cameras have no effect on me either way.
I have looked at them to see if I could use the lasers.
But I also know that there are those who value their privacy.
I have been a part of discussions about this topic since I started coming here.
I think that I might have have a possible solution.
The lab is open to the public for certain hours of the day.
During those hours, there is no real expectation of privacy in the lab.
Anyone can walk in off of the streets and use the equipment.
With that being said, (as long as there is notification,) the web cameras make sense.
However there is a lot of time that we are not open to the public and can be host to private events and members with keys.
The cameras do not make as much sense then.
If we can limit the camera availability to open public hours it may solve our issues.
Those who want to host/attend classes in privacy can do so while the cameras are offline.
This would require that NO ONE has access to those cameras during the nonpublic times.
IE no work around, backdoors, bypasses. NOTHING.
Of course I may be way off base.
I do not think there is a way to make everyone happy in regards to this topic.
We did vote as a lab to keep the cameras. It was a majority vote and passed clearly.
But because it will continue to be an issue for some either way, we need to finalize this.
I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on the subject and hope you all do as well.
Smith Hayward
Aug 14, 2025, 4:23:48 PMAug 14
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
I have get to opine on this topic because I don’t have a strong personal opinion, but I do want to add some context to this:
===================================
The lab is open to the public for certain hours of the day.
During those hours, there is no real expectation of privacy in the lab.
Anyone can walk in off of the streets and use the equipment.
During those hours, there is no real expectation of privacy in the lab.
Anyone can walk in off of the streets and use the equipment.
====================================
While none of the statements here are untrue, video feeds that can in any way identify someone while at the lab, either in realtime or on a few minute delay, unreasonably (IMO) lowers the barrier for those with malicious intent toward one or more of the membership/community. Someone wanting to stalk a guest by continually visiting the space to see if they are present is drastically different than being able to remotely view a camera feed that can inform your decision to visit at a particular time for a particular purpose.
That said, I do not blame anyone who appreciates the convenience of knowing when equipment is in use.
As a career (and currently unemployed; shameless plug) Business Analyst, I have to encourage the lab to step back and reconsider that the lower quality cameras may have been a solution to a problem without significant negative consequences but only until the one (and more?) cameras had to be replaced.
Perhaps we should take a step even further back to problem definition, because if the overarching problem/need is for people to save time/money not traveling to the lab when their needed machinery is unavailable, then I can already think of several avenues to solve this without cameras at all (presence sensors, signup sheets, a simple toggle button on an Arduino, etc.) and I’m sure many of you will have other (probably better) ideas. If non-camera ideas have been tried and failed I will be interested in learning why and how they failed.
I welcome feedback. I welcome other ideas. (I welcome job offers.)
- Smith
David Lang
Aug 14, 2025, 4:41:26 PMAug 14
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
Smith Hayward wrote:
> I have get to opine on this topic because I don’t have a strong personal opinion, but I do want to add some context to this:
>
> ===================================
> The lab is open to the public for certain hours of the day.
> During those hours, there is no real expectation of privacy in the lab.
> Anyone can walk in off of the streets and use the equipment.
> ====================================
>
> While none of the statements here are untrue, video feeds that can in any way identify someone while at the lab, either in realtime or on a few minute delay, unreasonably (IMO) lowers the barrier for those with malicious intent toward one or more of the membership/community. Someone wanting to stalk a guest by continually visiting the space to see if they are present is drastically different than being able to remotely view a camera feed that can inform your decision to visit at a particular time for a particular purpose.
>
> That said, I do not blame anyone who appreciates the convenience of knowing when equipment is in use.
>
> As a career (and currently unemployed; shameless plug) Business Analyst, I have to encourage the lab to step back and reconsider that the lower quality cameras may have been a solution to a problem without significant negative consequences but only until the one (and more?) cameras had to be replaced.
>
> Perhaps we should take a step even further back to problem definition, because if the overarching problem/need is for people to save time/money not traveling to the lab when their needed machinery is unavailable, then I can already think of several avenues to solve this without cameras at all (presence sensors, signup sheets, a simple toggle button on an Arduino, etc.) and I’m sure many of you will have other (probably better) ideas. If non-camera ideas have been tried and failed I will be interested in learning why and how they failed.
would it make any difference if the cameras were only available to members (or a
> I have get to opine on this topic because I don’t have a strong personal opinion, but I do want to add some context to this:
>
> ===================================
> The lab is open to the public for certain hours of the day.
> During those hours, there is no real expectation of privacy in the lab.
> Anyone can walk in off of the streets and use the equipment.
> ====================================
>
> While none of the statements here are untrue, video feeds that can in any way identify someone while at the lab, either in realtime or on a few minute delay, unreasonably (IMO) lowers the barrier for those with malicious intent toward one or more of the membership/community. Someone wanting to stalk a guest by continually visiting the space to see if they are present is drastically different than being able to remotely view a camera feed that can inform your decision to visit at a particular time for a particular purpose.
>
> That said, I do not blame anyone who appreciates the convenience of knowing when equipment is in use.
>
> As a career (and currently unemployed; shameless plug) Business Analyst, I have to encourage the lab to step back and reconsider that the lower quality cameras may have been a solution to a problem without significant negative consequences but only until the one (and more?) cameras had to be replaced.
>
> Perhaps we should take a step even further back to problem definition, because if the overarching problem/need is for people to save time/money not traveling to the lab when their needed machinery is unavailable, then I can already think of several avenues to solve this without cameras at all (presence sensors, signup sheets, a simple toggle button on an Arduino, etc.) and I’m sure many of you will have other (probably better) ideas. If non-camera ideas have been tried and failed I will be interested in learning why and how they failed.
more restricted version, to cardholders) rather than the general public?
what if instead of real-time video on the homepage, there were static snapshots,
delayed by X minutes?
as for lower quality cameras, newer cameras can be set for lower resolution
(it's common to do so for file size reasons), but we would need to define what
ans why before just saying '720p good, 4k bad' because more 720p cameras with
narrower lenses will give you more detail than a 4k camera with a wide angle
lens.
David Lang
Moheeb Zara
Aug 15, 2025, 7:45:26 PMAug 15
to HeatSync Labs
I propose we just have a telepresence robot and if anyone is uncomfortable with it while in the space they can lock it in the closet like in the sims. We make it look like K9. It can have lots of LEDs and make obnoxious noises. itll be great trust me.
Sheldon McGee
Aug 15, 2025, 8:05:32 PMAug 15
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
I'm all for it (as a member! not a board member!) as long as it also has a microphone where it can monitor language using AI and give gentle warnings via an electric shock when people are not being nice. We can test it by having our next disagreement in front of it and count how many times you get shocked.
As a board member . . . you don't even want to know what I think.
Sheldon
P.S. Moheeb and I are "friends" and this is all in good fun! Sup brah! Is it okay to say brah now? Someone told me it's the new bro. Sucks getting old. You don't even know what's okay to say anymore!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/a226ac7a-d626-4518-8e82-b52095c25534n%40googlegroups.com.
Gwyneth Gordon
Aug 15, 2025, 9:38:47 PMAug 15
to HeatSync Labs
If the cameras are kept and children are in attendance, I think there must be full transparency - meaning prominent signs for parents to know who has access to watch their children. Without this, I think Heatsync opens themselves up to a large legal risk.
If you think that prominent signs about surveillance might discourage people from bringing their children to Heatsync, I think that should be considered when deciding what to do with cameras. The fact that such signage has not been posted previously is disturbing.
I am not ascribing any motivation to everyone, but I'm strongly in support of transparency.
From: heatsy...@googlegroups.com <heatsy...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Chris McLaughlin <badtuf...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2025 12:45 PM
To: HeatSync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HSL] Re: A Path Forward on the Lab Cameras
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2025 12:45 PM
To: HeatSync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HSL] Re: A Path Forward on the Lab Cameras
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/22695adf-c6fa-4ab2-ae10-877ede410a39n%40googlegroups.com.
Sheldon McGee
Aug 15, 2025, 9:44:27 PMAug 15
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
Multiple people suggested signs like that over the years. They never got made. Hopefully this time, if we ever do have public web cams again, signs are the LEAST we do! I'm no laywer and don't know about that aspect but to me it's just good to be transparent.
Sheldon
Gwyneth Gordon
Aug 16, 2025, 10:21:36 AMAug 16
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
If everyone votes to restore the cameras, I volunteer to put up appropriate signage. In fact, I recommend that those who want to restore the cameras include recommended signage verbiage in the proposal. That way, my bias against cameras won't appear in the
signage.
Gwyneth
From: heatsy...@googlegroups.com <heatsy...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Sheldon McGee <sheldo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 6:44:06 PM
To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 6:44:06 PM
To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAJH76Fsmz%2BqEsf%3DrgefZ23SSgQddFma2t3UgCt1JY-5VrsHQ5w%40mail.gmail.com.
Luis Montes
Aug 16, 2025, 1:28:41 PMAug 16
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
If we put the AI stuff back up and fully segment the video so it's inaccessible to the outside, do we need to put up signs?
David Lang
Aug 16, 2025, 1:41:12 PMAug 16
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
Luis Montes wrote:
> If we put the AI stuff back up and fully segment the video so it's
> inaccessible to the outside, do we need to put up signs?
If the problem is with transmitting any images over the Internet as some claim,
> If we put the AI stuff back up and fully segment the video so it's
> inaccessible to the outside, do we need to put up signs?
we should have some signage. Even still pictures of events would violate those
restrictions, and I am sure that we want to be able to take still pictures of
people at events and use them in ways visible to the public.
David Lang
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 7:21 AM Gwyneth Gordon <Gwyneth...@asu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> If everyone votes to restore the cameras, I volunteer to put up
>> appropriate signage. In fact, I recommend that those who want to restore
>> the cameras include recommended signage verbiage in the proposal. That way,
>> my bias against cameras won't appear in the signage.
>>
>> Gwyneth
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* heatsy...@googlegroups.com <heatsy...@googlegroups.com> on
>> behalf of Sheldon McGee <sheldo...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, August 15, 2025 6:44:06 PM
>> *To:* heatsy...@googlegroups.com <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [HSL] Re: A Path Forward on the Lab Cameras
>>
>> Multiple people suggested signs like that over the years. They never got
>> made. Hopefully this time, if we ever do have public web cams again, signs
>> are the LEAST we do! I'm no laywer and don't know about that aspect but to
>> me it's just good to be transparent.
>>
>> Sheldon
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 6:38 PM Gwyneth Gordon <Gwyneth...@asu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If the cameras are kept and children are in attendance, I think there must
>> be full transparency - meaning prominent signs for parents to know who has
>> access to watch their children. Without this, I think Heatsync opens
>> themselves up to a large legal risk.
>>
>> If you think that prominent signs about surveillance might discourage
>> people from bringing their children to Heatsync, I think that should be
>> considered when deciding what to do with cameras. The fact that such
>> signage has not been posted previously is disturbing. I am not ascribing
>> any motivation to everyone, but I'm strongly in support of transparency.
>> ------------------------------
>> Multiple people suggested signs like that over the years. They never got
>> made. Hopefully this time, if we ever do have public web cams again, signs
>> are the LEAST we do! I'm no laywer and don't know about that aspect but to
>> me it's just good to be transparent.
>>
>> Sheldon
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 6:38 PM Gwyneth Gordon <Gwyneth...@asu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If the cameras are kept and children are in attendance, I think there must
>> be full transparency - meaning prominent signs for parents to know who has
>> access to watch their children. Without this, I think Heatsync opens
>> themselves up to a large legal risk.
>>
>> If you think that prominent signs about surveillance might discourage
>> people from bringing their children to Heatsync, I think that should be
>> considered when deciding what to do with cameras. The fact that such
>> signage has not been posted previously is disturbing. I am not ascribing
>> any motivation to everyone, but I'm strongly in support of transparency.
>> *From:* heatsy...@googlegroups.com <heatsy...@googlegroups.com> on
>> behalf of Chris McLaughlin <badtuf...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 14, 2025 12:45 PM
>> *To:* HeatSync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [HSL] Re: A Path Forward on the Lab Cameras
>> .
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/22695adf-c6fa-4ab2-ae10-877ede410a39n%40googlegroups.com
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/22695adf-c6fa-4ab2-ae10-877ede410a39n*40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JQ!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!c_xaK0itImpm4QhYnQs7w6HKn4v4frO4JZhzy1o8NnuD4-AfbKSraj78mFUQUVbqVUgloBwGwnb01lqH2ecznrCyOwVL$>
>> .
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/DM5PR06MB34349AD184026D89452091588835A%40DM5PR06MB3434.namprd06.prod.outlook.com
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/DM5PR06MB34349AD184026D89452091588835A*40DM5PR06MB3434.namprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JQ!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!cpfddA9ma-eEfMyqRzPA81m9vGSa2YYn44kLHalOsZW0fi5P-kANpJesmje6xeZuWdRd5TxJIhVOd8ZbQpEHER_bD68cOw$>
>> .
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAJH76Fsmz%2BqEsf%3DrgefZ23SSgQddFma2t3UgCt1JY-5VrsHQ5w%40mail.gmail.com
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAJH76Fsmz*2BqEsf*3DrgefZ23SSgQddFma2t3UgCt1JY-5VrsHQ5w*40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JSUl!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!cpfddA9ma-eEfMyqRzPA81m9vGSa2YYn44kLHalOsZW0fi5P-kANpJesmje6xeZuWdRd5TxJIhVOd8ZbQpEHER95Oecm5A$>
>> .
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/DM5PR06MB3434A72867548CB8967E773E8837A%40DM5PR06MB3434.namprd06.prod.outlook.com
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/DM5PR06MB3434A72867548CB8967E773E8837A%40DM5PR06MB3434.namprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>
Robert Bushman
Aug 16, 2025, 1:44:54 PMAug 16
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
On 8/16/25 10:41, David Lang wrote:
> Luis Montes wrote:
>
>> If we put the AI stuff back up and fully segment the video so it's
>> inaccessible to the outside, do we need to put up signs?
>
> If the problem is with transmitting any images over the Internet as some
> claim, we should have some signage. Even still pictures of events would
> violate those restrictions, and I am sure that we want to be able to
> take still pictures of people at events and use them in ways visible to
> the public.
When I took photos of my events, I asked folks for permission.
> Luis Montes wrote:
>
>> If we put the AI stuff back up and fully segment the video so it's
>> inaccessible to the outside, do we need to put up signs?
>
> If the problem is with transmitting any images over the Internet as some
> claim, we should have some signage. Even still pictures of events would
> violate those restrictions, and I am sure that we want to be able to
> take still pictures of people at events and use them in ways visible to
> the public.
David Lang
Aug 16, 2025, 1:48:10 PMAug 16
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
someone 'forgot' that you asked?
having signage would address this.
David Lang
Luis Montes
Aug 16, 2025, 1:48:21 PMAug 16
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
This is no reason to have to transmit images over the internet. We could simply transmit the AI detected shapes without any raster data and keep the cameras segmented to a private LAN that even other lab PCs can't access.
David Lang
Aug 16, 2025, 1:51:45 PMAug 16
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
Luis Montes wrote:
> This is no reason to have to transmit images over the internet. We could
> simply transmit the AI detected shapes without any raster data and keep the
> cameras segmented to a private LAN that even other lab PCs can't access.
I was thinking in terms of taking still pictures of kids playing with legos that
> This is no reason to have to transmit images over the internet. We could
> simply transmit the AI detected shapes without any raster data and keep the
> cameras segmented to a private LAN that even other lab PCs can't access.
we want to use as publicity of the lego night.
or people taking pictures of their projects to post them and there are kids in
the background.
someone mentioned that there used to be a 'project cam' around the lab that
auto-uploaded anything it took to a heatsinklabs account and then pics could be
tagged and show up in the slideshow etc.
Smith Hayward
Aug 16, 2025, 8:46:33 PMAug 16
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
I still feel like backing up to problem definition stage is important, but another idea came to mind:
If we are able to detect people by passing video stream data to an AI device (preferably running locally), then if we have camera angles that cover the most popular / contended equipment, then would we be able to provide an illustrated floor plan of the lab and put colored dots that represents the approximate location of a person. I imagine someone here knows how to do that sort of math (or the AI can), and if not I feel that I could probably work it out with some study.
Since I jumped into this conversation my brain has been toiling on the problem and I continue to ideate on the matter. Regardless of how we detect human activity, I was thinking that it would be cool to have a way to indicate that key equipment is in use, perhaps through Slack just like we have notifications from the 3D printers.
Additionally, it would be interesting to be able to request to be notified when a piece of equipment becomes available, or perhaps even when one becomes in-use (because perhaps someone needs assistance with the machinery, like the laser cutters - due to non-certification). I can even envision a small console at the Laser station that lets the person there to indicate that they are using the equipment, but perhaps also be able to indicate that they are "open to assist". While it would be cool, I'm not sure how realistic it would be to estimate one's expected finish time with the equipment, but the idea has come to me.
I don't want to brain-dump too much here (oops, too late), but I just feel this drive to help solve this "problem" whether it's with or without the use of cameras. I'm just throwing it out there that if the cameras are the SPECIFIC source of contention (hard to argue at this point), then revisiting the problem while constrained from using cameras to see where we can get seems like a viable (and perhaps logical) next step (at least to me).
If anyone would like to participate in brainstorming this problem, please holler. Here, #general in Slack, etc. From my perspective, there's really no problem that this community cannot come together to solve in a safe, community-centered and technologically savvy way.
~Smith H.
Antonio Contrisciani
Aug 16, 2025, 11:29:36 PMAug 16
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
still images should be covered by the waiver we already have in place.
Heather Jackson
Aug 17, 2025, 10:40:10 AMAug 17
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com, HeatSync Labs
Using the AI solution to prevent casual users from seeing which individuals in particular are at the lab would probably go a long way to toward protecting the privacy and safety of people at the lab. I am guessing that the pool of people who are malicious enough, motivated enough, and capable enough to access and misuse the information is very small. I know that it would have prevented the HSL camera facilitated stalking incident I experienced.
Maybe a solution that is partial in this way is good enough to be worth doing.
I’d be curious to hear how others view this.
On Aug 14, 2025, at 2:57 PM, Cprossu <cpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/139a4ce6-598e-46d4-acb8-56ca82433872n%40googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages