Reopening the Issue Involving Surveillance Cameras
Arnob Kabir
I am also reopening the issue to make the argument that the usage of publicly viewable surveillance cameras in any capacity is in direct contradiction with HeatSync Lab's bylaws, and that the surveillance cameras must be disabled immediately if HeatSync Labs wants to continue to maintain itself as an inclusive space.
HeatSync Labs' bylaws states the following under section 5.1: "Purpose":
"A big part of HeatSync Labs mission of making tools accessible is to be inclusive to the largest number of contributors, with the most varied and diverse backgrounds possible. As such, we are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of age, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, race, national origin or ancestry, socioeconomic status, and religion (or lack thereof)."
A common argument for the continued use of the surveillance cameras is convenience. Seeing whether machines are being used by other people is convenient.
Convenience for the majority is not the purpose of HeatSync Labs. The purpose of HeatSync Labs is protection and inclusion of the minority. Our current political climate is particularly hostile to members of the LGBTQ+ and immigrant communities. By continuing to use surveillance cameras so that anyone in the general public can monitor the space, whether interested in our machinery or interested in the whereabouts of certain individuals, we are endangering our most vulnerable. This is an intolerable offense.
Arnob Kabir
Eric Ose
--
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/e255ed24-f4e5-4e8b-873d-672963e1b21fn%40googlegroups.com.
Tim M
A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly photograph, videotape, film, digitally record or by any other means secretly view, with or without a device, another person without that person's consent under either of the following circumstances:
1. In a restroom, bathroom, locker room, bedroom or other location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the person is urinating, defecating, dressing, undressing, nude or involved in sexual intercourse or sexual contact.
2. In a manner that directly or indirectly captures or allows the viewing of the person's genitalia, buttock or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, that is not otherwise visible to the public.
B. It is unlawful to disclose, display, distribute or publish a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording made in violation of subsection A of this section without the consent or knowledge of the person depicted.
C. This section does not apply to:
1. Photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording for security purposes if notice of the use of photographing, videotaping, filming or digital recording equipment is clearly posted in the location and the location is one in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
2. Photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording by correctional officials for security reasons or in connection with the investigation of alleged misconduct of persons on the premises of a jail or prison.
3. Photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording by law enforcement officers pursuant to an investigation, which is otherwise lawful.
4. The use of a child monitoring device as defined in section 13-3001.
D. A violation of subsection A or B of this section is a class 5 felony.
E. Notwithstanding subsection D of this section, a violation of subsection A or B of this section that does not involve the use of a device is a class 6 felony, except that a second or subsequent violation of subsection A or B of this section that does not involve the use of a device is a class 5 felony.
F. Notwithstanding subsection D of this section, a violation of subsection B of this section is a class 4 felony if the person depicted is recognizable.
G. For the purposes of this section, "sexual contact" and "sexual intercourse" have the same meanings prescribed in section 13-1401.
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 1:55 PM
To: HeatSync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [HSL] Reopening the Issue Involving Surveillance 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.
Sheldon McGee
--
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/e255ed24-f4e5-4e8b-873d-672963e1b21fn%40googlegroups.com.
Robert Bushman
thread has been filled with rhetoric. I'm just using this as jumping off
point.
> The cameras are just a tool like every other tool in the lab.
You can mill aluminum without a public video feed.
The core question is whether having a public video feed increases
benevolent use of the space or decreases it. Focus on that.
Identify the benevolent effects we want:
Let people know whether the tool they want to use is in use.
Don't help stalkers harm our members.
Let people know whether someone is there to help them.
What else?
Are there satisfactory alternatives to achieve desired effects? For
example, security is covered by non-public video.
Once alternative solutions are considered, how much do public video
feeds change the net benefit?
Rhetoric is easy but as politics shows us, it rewards those most willing
to be an aggressive loudmouth. Focus on tangible effects.
Tim M
A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly photograph, videotape, film, digitally record or by any other means secretly view, with or without a device, another person without that person's consent under either of the following circumstances:
1. In a restroom, bathroom, locker room, bedroom or other location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the person is urinating, defecating, dressing, undressing, nude or involved in sexual intercourse or sexual contact.
2. In a manner that directly or indirectly captures or allows the viewing of the person's genitalia, buttock or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, that is not otherwise visible to the public.
B. It is unlawful to disclose, display, distribute or publish a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording made in violation of subsection A of this section without the consent or knowledge of the person depicted.
C. This section does not apply to:
1. Photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording for security purposes if notice of the use of photographing, videotaping, filming or digital recording equipment is clearly posted in the location and the location is one in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
2. Photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording by correctional officials for security reasons or in connection with the investigation of alleged misconduct of persons on the premises of a jail or prison.
3. Photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording by law enforcement officers pursuant to an investigation, which is otherwise lawful.
4. The use of a child monitoring device as defined in section 13-3001.
D. A violation of subsection A or B of this section is a class 5 felony.
E. Notwithstanding subsection D of this section, a violation of subsection A or B of this section that does not involve the use of a device is a class 6 felony, except that a second or subsequent violation of subsection A or B of this section that does not involve the use of a device is a class 5 felony.
F. Notwithstanding subsection D of this section, a violation of subsection B of this section is a class 4 felony if the person depicted is recognizable.
G. For the purposes of this section, "sexual contact" and "sexual intercourse" have the same meanings prescribed in section 13-1401.
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 1:55 PM
To: HeatSync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [HSL] Reopening the Issue Involving Surveillance Cameras
I am also reopening the issue to make the argument that the usage of publicly viewable surveillance cameras in any capacity is in direct contradiction with HeatSync Lab's bylaws, and that the surveillance cameras must be disabled immediately if HeatSync Labs wants to continue to maintain itself as an inclusive space.
HeatSync Labs' bylaws states the following under section 5.1: "Purpose":
"A big part of HeatSync Labs mission of making tools accessible is to be inclusive to the largest number of contributors, with the most varied and diverse backgrounds possible. As such, we are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of age, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, race, national origin or ancestry, socioeconomic status, and religion (or lack thereof)."
A common argument for the continued use of the surveillance cameras is convenience. Seeing whether machines are being used by other people is convenient.
Convenience for the majority is not the purpose of HeatSync Labs. The purpose of HeatSync Labs is protection and inclusion of the minority. Our current political climate is particularly hostile to members of the LGBTQ+ and immigrant communities. By continuing to use surveillance cameras so that anyone in the general public can monitor the space, whether interested in our machinery or interested in the whereabouts of certain individuals, we are endangering our most vulnerable. This is an intolerable offense.--
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.
Michael Mathers
TLDR: I think the cameras should stay but the footage used solely for lab security and not generally accessible.
I'm new (and old). I was a member for a short while 12 years ago but the available hours didn't work out very well for me then with the other commitments I had in my life. Most of those constraints are now gone and the Saturday hours will also be a great help. I expect to be spending lots of time here going forward and I'm excited to be here and make use of its empowering facilities.
I was one of the Scoutmasters for a large scout troop until recently for ~8 years. Like HSL, an organization like that takes many contributors in many different roles -- Scoutmasters are only one of the more visible. There is a Committee, outdoor event coordinators, treasurers, advancement coordinators, charter organization reps, parental volunteers and many more. Of course, the troop also has property assets -- tents, camp stoves, trailers, etc.
But always, the most valuable asset was Volunteer Time. It was practically a mantra internalized and institutionalized. My experience at HSL is limited but I still have to conclude the same is true here. It's not the laser. It's not the tools and printers. It's not even money though money is certainly important. The most valuable HSL assets are the quality volunteer contributions of Time and Energy.
It pains me to see some of these contributors being driven away by the indiscriminate publishing of camera feeds that few seem to really want. While I personally am unbothered of myself being publicly published I fully understand the many valid reasons why some others are not ok with it.
1. security / safety / criminal / evidential - a clearly important and valuable benefit
2. station / tool use / availability - east to use but very hit or miss effectiveness - also there are alternatives
3. hosting availability - not sure this perceived benefit is even real
4. marketing benefit based on search results - a vague benefit of unknown real value -- I would argue that a few quality interactions with our great volunteers easily exceed a marketing benefit here. I never stop hearing about someone who was helpful and made someone's experience at the lab better.
I may have missed some things but these seem like the most talked about and had the most perceived value -- still only the first seems actually concrete and doesn't require publishing the feed at all. Do the others really outweigh such extraordinary volunteer assets along with the obvious cons?
I think the clear answer on publishing feeds is no.
Security / safety
I think it is without question the presence of visible cameras makes the lab a safer place. Members and Hosts confirm they are, and have been, an effective deterrent for undesirable and illegal behavior. The lab expressly invites the public and I think there is a duty to provide some reasonable protection for the volunteers who are hosting and anyone that is using the lab reasonably and per policy. Further, the public publishing of the feed has actually created a safety issue at least one time for a member in the past. This is the best argument for keeping visible cameras (and posting a sign about the cameras) -- to deter miscreant behavior. Theft deterrence is not a bad one either and am rather appalled that someone stole the RasPis physically connected to 3D printers. The thefts could easily be more significant.
Legal
Tool/Station Use/Availability
There are presence detection solutions that are non-identifying. You could mess around with image AI and obscuring faces or whatnot.... I know that someone mentioned playing with this. I would not approach it that way but there are likely some pre-roll solutions out there already. It isn't a new problem. How well they work I couldn't say and their cost is probably high (maybe too high).
However, more purpose built solutions are likely easier and cheaper, IMHO. Millimeter wave (mmWave) sensors have come a long way and I suspect there are only a half dozen tools/stations that have any real need to show public availability and use metrics. A mmWave sensor and ESP32 capable of detecting even stationary person(s) have a cost in the range of $15. ESPHome has built-in support for this I believe. A solution of this type isn't as straight-forward as just publishing a camera feed but I suspect it's actual performance would be substantially better. Concrete use data likely would also benefit the lab in other ways.
Are there downsides, maybe.... it's not something I've explored in depth. Are there other better solutions? Also maybe. Dollars to donuts, someone at HSL already has experience with these sensors and can tell me why they would or would not do the job. But I would still contend that no solution is still better than driving away quality Volunteer Time.
I am willing to try to tackle this myself and have some experience with microcontrollers and electronics. I was a software engineer/architect before I retired. I would gladly accept help and advice in all ways -- even competing/collaborating efforts. I also just love geeking out if you just want to talk about presence detection strategies with me.
However, the point is to make it such that the Volunteer Time that quality volunteers freely give is as comfortable and rewarding as possible. That is the real precious asset to manage at HSL.
In summary: I think the cameras should stay but the footage used solely for lab security and not generally accessible.
Michael
Arnob Kabir
Tim, you're right that the law generally applies to hidden cameras or cameras in private places. What I take issue with is the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy". In my research, that phrase can be dangerous for private properties that are open to the public and use cameras like HeatSync Labs. Why do we even allow the possibility of getting sued over it? It should be in the liability waiver.
If people are not willing to put in the work to reign in the cameras, either by putting it behind a member wall, using AI, or whatever we decide, then the cameras shouldn't be up at all. Personally, I don't think that needs to be up for proposal. The most common comment about the cameras is "ok we shouldn't completely take them down, but we should do this instead...". If no one is willing to DO that in a DO-ocracy, then doing something even more invasive shouldn't be done at all.
My original reply got swallowed up and never showed for some reason. Sorry if this posts twice.
---
TLDR: I think the cameras should stay but the footage used solely for lab security and not generally accessible.
I apologize for introducing myself in this way and I feel awkward commenting on the running of the lab having just got here. I hope it's ok that I am.
Hello, I'm new (and old). I was a member for a short while 12 years ago but the available hours didn't work out very well for me then with the other commitments I had in my life. Most of those constraints are now gone and the Saturday hours will also a great help. I expect to be spending lots of time here going forward and I am excited to make use of so many of the labs wonderful facilities.
I was one of the Scoutmasters for a large scout troop until recently for ~8 years. Like HSL, an organization like that takes many contributors in many different roles -- Scoutmasters are only one of the more visible. There is a Committee, outdoor event coordinators, treasurers, advancement coordinators, charter organization reps, parental volunteers and many more. Of course, the troop also has property assets -- tents, camp stoves, trailers, etc.
But always, the most valuable asset was Volunteer Time. It was practically a mantra internalized and institutionalized. My experience at HSL is limited but I still have to conclude the same is true here. It's not the laser. It's not the tools and printers. It's not even money though money is important. The most valuable HSL assets are the quality volunteer contributions of Time and Energy.
It pains me to see some of these contributors being driven away by the indiscriminate publishing of camera feeds that few seem to really want.
In favor of the camera feeds, there are a few recognizable/mentioned benefits that I grokked:
1. security / safety / criminal / evidential - a clearly important and valuable benefit
2. station / tool use / availability - easy to use but very hit or miss effectiveness - also there are alternatives
3. hosting availability - not sure this perceived benefit is even real
4. marketing benefit based on search results - a vague benefit of unknown real value -- I would argue that a few quality interactions with our great volunteers easily exceed a marketing benefit here. I never stop hearing about someone who was helpful and made someone's experience at the lab better.
I may have missed some things but these seem like the most talked about and had the most perceived value -- still only the first seems actually concrete and doesn't require publishing the feed at all. Do the others really outweigh such extraordinary volunteer assets along with the obvious cons?
I think the clear answer on publishing feeds is no.
Security / safety
I think it is without question the presence of visible cameras makes the lab a safer place. Members and Hosts confirm they are an effective deterrent for undesirable and illegal behavior. The lab expressly invites the public and I think there is a duty to provide some reasonable protection for the volunteers who are hosting and anyone that is using the lab reasonably and per policy. This is the best argument for posting a sign about the cameras -- to deter miscreant behavior.Theft deterrence is not a bad one either. I'm appalled at the theft of RasPis from connected 3D printers. The thefts could easily be worse.
The publishing of the feeds are not necessary to achieve all of the safety/security benefits. Indeed, doing so has concretely contributed to less safety in at least one incident.
Legal
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.) There would not be a reasonable expectation of privacy inside of the lab for A.R.S. 13-3019 (except for the bathrooms, of course). The lab is expressly open to the public on a main street. Having a sign isn't a bad thing to do but it isn't legally required. Are thera additional requirement for publishing that video footage? Possibly. Particularly for persons under 13 and I do believe that has been brought up before but I personally have not investigated that.
Tool/Station Use/AvailabilityThere are presence detection solutions that are non-identifying. You could mess around with image AI and obscuring faces or whatnot.... I know that someone mentioned playing with this. I would not approach it that way but there are likely some pre-roll solutions out there already. It isn't a new problem. How well they work I couldn't say and there cost is probably high (maybe too high).
However, more purpose built solutions are likely easier and cheaper, IMHO. Millimeter wave (mmWave) sensors have come a long way and I suspect there are only a half dozen tools/stations that any real need to show public availability and use metrics. A mmWave sensor and ESP32 capable of detecting a stationary person(s) have a cost in the range of $15. ESPHome has built-in support for this I believe. A solution of this type isn't as straight-forward as just publishing a camera feed but I suspect it's actual performance would be substantially better. Actual concrete use data likely would also benefit the lab in other ways.
Are there downsides, maybe.... it's not something I've explored in depth. Are there other better solutions? Also maybe. Dollars to donuts, someone at HSL already has experience with these sensors and can tell me why they would or would not do the job. But I would still contend that no solution is still better than driving away quality Volunteer Time.
I am willing to try to tackle this myself and have some experience with microcontrollers and electronics. I was a software engineer/architect before I retired. I would gladly accept help and advice in all ways -- even competing/collaborating efforts. I also just love geeking out if you just want to talk about presence detection strategies.
However, the point is to make it such that the Time and Energy that quality volunteers give as comfortable and rewarding as possible. That is the real precious asset to manage at HSL.
Sheldon McGee
--
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/1461f8e5-aa67-47ba-b0f1-0a1c82f1dd3b%40traxel.com.
Mike Wolfson
FWIW, I had already talked with another card holder and I am intending on creating a Proposal to get rid of live public feed (pretty much the exact same proposal that was brought up before and was voted down, same as before, I don't want to revise the proposal or keep the cameras and put them behind a "member wall").
My reasoning is simple - I know of people that are not coming to the lab because of the cameras, and that is a price I am not willing to pay, and I think it is not good for the lab.
- Mike Wolfson
Mike Wolfson
I just wanted to be transparent, and let people know my plans towards this discussion.
-Mike W
Tim M
A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly photograph, videotape, film, digitally record or by any other means secretly view, with or without a device, another person without that person's consent under either of the following circumstances:
1. In a restroom, bathroom, locker room, bedroom or other location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the person is urinating, defecating, dressing, undressing, nude or involved in sexual intercourse or sexual contact.
2. In a manner that directly or indirectly captures or allows the viewing of the person's genitalia, buttock or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, that is not otherwise visible to the public.
B. It is unlawful to disclose, display, distribute or publish a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording made in violation of subsection A of this section without the consent or knowledge of the person depicted.
C. This section does not apply to:
1. Photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording for security purposes if notice of the use of photographing, videotaping, filming or digital recording equipment is clearly posted in the location and the location is one in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
2. Photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording by correctional officials for security reasons or in connection with the investigation of alleged misconduct of persons on the premises of a jail or prison.
3. Photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording by law enforcement officers pursuant to an investigation, which is otherwise lawful.
4. The use of a child monitoring device as defined in section 13-3001.
D. A violation of subsection A or B of this section is a class 5 felony.
E. Notwithstanding subsection D of this section, a violation of subsection A or B of this section that does not involve the use of a device is a class 6 felony, except that a second or subsequent violation of subsection A or B of this section that does not involve the use of a device is a class 5 felony.
F. Notwithstanding subsection D of this section, a violation of subsection B of this section is a class 4 felony if the person depicted is recognizable.
G. For the purposes of this section, "sexual contact" and "sexual intercourse" have the same meanings prescribed in section 13-1401.
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 12:13:47 PM
To: HeatSync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HSL] Re: Reopening the Issue Involving Surveillance Cameras
Mike Wolfson
Probably a good idea to keep discussion in THIS thread, to not fragment it.
Julian Samaroo
Mike Wolfson
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/heatsynclabs/qOLkMvIFT64/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/545ee6f7-89f5-4c5b-9e83-f4d7ee49fb0bn%40googlegroups.com.
David Crummey
13-3019. Surreptitious photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording or viewing; exemptions; classification; definitions
A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly photograph, videotape, film, digitally record or by any other means secretly view, with or without a device, another person without that person's consent under either of the following circumstances:
1. In a restroom, bathroom, locker room, bedroom or other location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the person is urinating, defecating, dressing, undressing, nude or involved in sexual intercourse or sexual contact.
2. In a manner that directly or indirectly captures or allows the viewing of the person's genitalia, buttock or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, that is not otherwise visible to the public.
Antonio Contrisciani
This keeps being brought up during these discussions and it's become very clear that there is some confusion about it so I want to be as blunt and clear as possible. I apologize for those of you that already know this.
THERE ARE TWO SETS OF CAMERAS.
THERE ARE TWO SETS OF CAMERAS.
THERE ARE SECURITY CAMERA THAT ARE HIGH RES AND AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD ONLY FOR SECURITY. THERE ARE WEBCAMS THAT ANYONE CAN VIEW ON THE WEBSITE.
SECURITY CAMERAS
WEBCAMS.
Now that I'm done shouting. The issue is with the WEBCAMS. Any questions about security, theft prevention,etc should not enter into this discussion at all because they are not applicable. the discussion is about removal or obfuscation of the WEBCAMS.
For the background for those that did not follow the situation, the WEBCAMS have always been a hot topic of discussion going back years. Concerns about privacy and stalkers existed even before they were implemented. Previously they were of such poor quality it was considered a compromise where you could see people present but not really make out who they were. Even that compromise caused some folks to stop coming or reduce their hours in the lab. Those cameras began to fail rapidly. They were no longer functioning so going back to them is not an option. The head of operations decided under the duties of his position to replace the cameras with modern equipment. As this was considered one of his duties (replace failing hardware) he did not query the members or public in advance.
Whether or not this was the correct course of action is academic at the moment and not germane to the discussion. The change has been made and reverting is not an option. Going forward we realistically have three options available.
We can continue with the current cameras and accept the loss of personnel.
We can adjust the cameras in some way to obfuscate or limit the images.
We can remove the cameras entirely.
There is no purpose in restricting access since we already have higher res restricted access SECURITY CAMERAS for theft and safety.
Ultimately I think Mike and several others have hit the nail squarely on the head.
What is of more value to the lab right now? Seeing if someone is there on the WEBCAMS or losing the personnel who have already or plan to leave over this.
I know I personally feel that volunteers like Eric are of far more value to the lab than the perk of seeing if someone is inside the building.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/ab3d20e7-c080-4c22-b148-22c2c8c8265bn%40googlegroups.com.
Michael Mathers
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALmAu85T60_Huw-F1K%2BHMs_nhmYo8XALDodqmZhM_JjzuKRt5g%40mail.gmail.com.
Jeff Sittler
Mike Wolfson
I am thinking of starting a book club group at the lab, and I don't necessarily want it known who is attending my book club. It will be an "Anti-Fascist Book Club" and we will start with a book by Ruth Ben Ghiat, and then move onto a book by Dr Steven Hassan, and then ... who knows.
But I don't want the identity of my group broadcast on the internet, and I will have to find another place to host this if things don't change.
-MIke
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/a8db7373-bb86-4e6e-a4e6-830e2667362en%40googlegroups.com.
Mike Wolfson Phoenix, AZ, USA
Rick Blake
Mike, it's difficult to make the Lab a private place. That's not at all inclusive. But this is worthy of more discussion.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAGBn4GL4gV6S7aYwSCzeQ276sLjC-wYq4hyrMx0LoyOfs94BvA%40mail.gmail.com.
Chris McLaughlin
Rick Blake
Chris, when I'm in the Lab during co-work I try to be respectful and quiet and avoid disruptive behavior. If a book club were in progress I would do the same. Generally we should be respectful of others at all times. I think a book cloud isn't at all contrary to the Lab ethos, but a private book club would perhaps be better suited to a truly private space. But I don't want to discourage this, just considering how it would work in the Lab.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/bb9b3cfd-e04c-4b1f-8c4e-7c199fff5d78n%40googlegroups.com.
Mike Wolfson
Forget I mentioned a book club, but keep in mind the part about not wanting to be seen on camera doing certain things (again those things are perfectly legal, and within the bounds of activities done at HSL).
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALSEc_cGEmfH4Q6aMD_E7XCzjaAqS2%2Bf6j1Db9pvG%2B04R9DOXw%40mail.gmail.com.
Mike Wolfson
Hopefully we can come to a reasonable solution at our next HYH. Cheers.
-MIke
Rick Blake
We'll, it's basic to the discussion that the cameras are a concern to people who would prefer to not be identified. It's never been about their activities, as far as I recall. The public feed, at least, is at issue. It's one thing to be in the Lab and realize your activities are in sight or hearing of others, another thing that they are recorded and/or available on our public website. I'm sensitive to the latter, but I'm unable to reconcile the former with the Lab's purpose and operation. But I'm open to understanding it better.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAGBn4GLT4_EtRaa%3DuxGn9O4NPS9RnYMKLYw%2B4J2%2B8rVhwt1tzg%40mail.gmail.com.
Mike Wolfson
(I really am going to opt out now, I am just wanting to avoid being passive-aggressive, and do want to avoid un-necessary and un-related controversy)
Eric Ose
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/1f0ddb75-5b07-4487-9143-9d91941d58ebn%40googlegroups.com.
John Cook
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAEk_gvCHQnT3Mm3i4ridsVjtT457SOiqEUJ%2BWoC2p6wu%3DY4Wvg%40mail.gmail.com.
Eric Ose
Robot Ambassador
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAO_0eRr95%3DbtXMG5EAsk9LHAWODsHERqLWVbgYPbF8y_8CxfoQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Antonio Contrisciani
Now I don't know if the person saw me on the cams and recognized me and wanted to talk or if they just wandered in and were directed to me by someone in the lab or what, but folks forget that even champions and board members sometimes want to work on our own things and it shouldn't be assumed that just because we are in the lab we are available for something.
As to John, ostensibly whoever is hosting is supposed to be the manager so to speak, that's part of hosting. Hosts should be doing the following:
The lab is a burden on the people of Mesa wide open for lawsuits. - This statement seems like it was intended just to be inflammatory. We have an incredible safety record considering the number and types of machines and resources available in the lab. The city of mesa has always welcomed us and considered us a resource for the community, not a burden.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAEk_gvCXythGFtnetkk9r2uQWbotMfXJBgkxHV%2B54zCDD8VkkQ%40mail.gmail.com.