Google Groups

Re: (Arch Reactor) Wireless Cameras for the Space


Altered Ego Oct 5, 2012 3:24 AM
Posted in group: Arch Reactor
I am with Pete and Joe on this one.  I don't want to have feeds
accessible to just anybody.  I understand the benefit in terms of
security as a deterrent for theft.  But, outside of that I would
prefer to be able to have reasonable privacy in my comings and goings.
 I also think that it is a bad thing for things like 2600 meetings.
Some people do not want a public facing record of association with an
interest in the ins and outs of security vulnerabilities and how they
are exploited.  These sorts of meetings carry with them the
expectation of being a protetected space.  People aren't supposed to
hack each other and there really shouldn't be any documentation of the
participation that is undesired.  It's a matter of respect and being a
good host.

The cameras are a necessary evil. We don't want unaccountability for
actions when it comes to things like theft.  But, review of
surviellance should be limited to a need to know basis in terms of
viewing and by members of the board.

People should feel free to be themselves without the fear of their
actions popping up later on the internet to embarrass them.
Discretion and respect should be built into whatever system is
created.  The feeds should be reasonable assured to not be publicly
viewable.

It isn't only about what is easier.  It is also about what is the
correct way to carry ourselves and treat people fairly.




On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Ricke <andrew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah. I agree with George. 1) We're public so who cares if the camera's are
> exposed to wider internet 2). Whose hacking these cameras that doesn't
> belong with us anyway?
>
> If someone can setup IP cameras easier/sooner/cheaper that CCTV, then I
> don't think we have a reason to object . Whatever tech gets the job done.
>
> Andrew
> -Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 4, 2012, at 1:34 PM, George Fetters <gfet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I seriously doubt that anything we do in the space that would be something
> people would want to watch other than our projects, and if there is
> something going on in the space that shouldn't be broadcast on the web maybe
> we shouldn't be doing it in the space.  I think more than anything this is
> an fear of loss of a freedom.  The freedom to do what we want when we want
> without someone seeing us.  I think that's an irrational fear.
>
> The very first question the police asked when I told them my phone was
> stolen was "Are there any cameras that could have recorded the crime?".
>
> And what if these cameras are hacked?  I think the hacker would be sorely
> disappointed by the view of our lounge furniture and tables.  Wouldn't we
> want to invite anyone that did hack the cameras to join our space?  I think
> we post a message on the whiteboard, "Hey, you hacked the cameras, you
> passed the first test, come down on Tuesday nights and meet us ;-)"
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Pete L. <pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think we want cameras pulling "double duty."
>>
>> I think if we want to have a live feed from the space, we should limit it
>> to a designated area and make sure people know that activities in that area
>> are being broadcast to the internet. Whereas, for security cameras, we want
>> to have maximal coverage. It's not meant to be a "big brother is watching
>> you" situation. I think it's reasonable to say that archival footage from
>> the security cameras should be limited in availability to the executive
>> board and should be used only for situations such as theft, misplacement, or
>> destruction of tools/property; or investigating/documenting accidents.
>>
>> Security cameras seem like a good idea when we have so many people around
>> the space, some of which might not be known by everyone there. But we should
>> also appreciate that people might not want everything they do at the space
>> to be available for review by anyone with a web browser.
>>
>> So, if we want to have an area dedicated to "Live from Arch Reactor" or
>> something, that's fine with me, as long as it's appropriately designated
>> (i.e. signs). But the addition of security cameras should be a separate
>> project with different goals.
>>
>> -Pete
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Xsfx2000 <xsfx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Pulling, um, double duty.
>>> -web cam
>>> -security cam
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Arch Reactor" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to arch-r...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> arch-reactor...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Arch Reactor" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to arch-r...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> arch-reactor...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Arch Reactor" group.
> To post to this group, send email to arch-r...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> arch-reactor...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Arch Reactor" group.
> To post to this group, send email to arch-r...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> arch-reactor...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>