Workshop security question

52 views
Skip to first unread message

Sci

unread,
Apr 18, 2011, 6:25:31 PM4/18/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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-----

Katie Sutton

unread,
Apr 18, 2011, 6:32:40 PM4/18/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

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

cepm...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
Apr 18, 2011, 6:42:36 PM4/18/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Just because you are a paranoid, it doesn`t mean that they aren`t trying
to get you.....

Mark Steward

unread,
Apr 18, 2011, 7:04:47 PM4/18/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
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.


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.
 
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?

I'm just going to note that this is why it's so important that the doors get shut.  There are also people who watch the cameras most of the day.  It might make sense to remove the link from the wiki.
 
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. ;)

 


Mark

Charles Yarnold

unread,
Apr 18, 2011, 7:06:52 PM4/18/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 19 April 2011 00:04, Mark Steward <marks...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.

Oh bum, forgot to port that across, will be fixed tomorrow evening. 

M

unread,
Apr 18, 2011, 7:37:57 PM4/18/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
I think the cameras should stay public for Tuesday nights, I can't see any reason to allow them to be viewable for the remainder of the time. I'm not the only person that gets a bit tired of the whole big brother thing, half the time I forget then suddenly notice as I'm picking my nose that there is a camera pointed directly at me, at that point I giggle and hope it disgusts the viewer and I dig a little deeper.

Streams for paying members only, okay; I can cope with that.

laye...@graffiti.net

unread,
Apr 18, 2011, 8:33:18 PM4/18/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
LOL

(nice troll)

but to keep it going as i have a particular interest in this topic i would like to share my opinion.

as far as i remember i raised this particular issue some month ago talking to charles who is hosting the footage and some other fellow members like sam lr 
pointing it out as a potential security leak which clever people could observe and hit - if they would want that.

in our conversation i got assured it is on purpose that everyone who wants can have public access to the webcams link and it would be regularly posted on irc.

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.


anyway, people...just my 2p...

smile you are on camera,



C

Adrian Godwin

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 1:40:41 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:33 AM, <laye...@graffiti.net> wrote:

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.




I'm not a big fan of street security cameras on general principles either, though I guess I've forgotten they're there now.

However, I do like the hackspace cameras : I live far enough away that I can't get there as often as I like, and the ability to see stuff going on is a huge help in allowing me to be part of the community. I very much doubt I'd feel as comfortable with contact only on the mailing list and IRC. 

This doesn't mean I watch them all the time (that's discouraged for bandwidth reasons and I don't have time anyway) but I do look at one or other of them quite frequently. I don't find it particularly interesting to watch any one person, and the camera resolution makes that a bit pointless anyway. So if I leave the camera pointing at you I apologise for the intrusion, but the chances are I'm not looking at it!

-adrian

Russ Garrett

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 3:07:03 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 18 April 2011 23:25, Sci <s...@sci-fi-fox.com> wrote:
> Just throwing up some paranoid thoughts. ;)

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

Adrian Godwin

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 4:03:15 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Russ Garrett <ru...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:
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?


A further way to level the surveillance playing-field would be if the identity of anyone viewing the cameras were to be displayed on a board in the space.

Would those people who are uncomfortable with the cameras watching them feel happier if the watchers were themselves identified ?

-adrian

Prestwick

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 4:26:21 AM4/19/11
to London Hackspace
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.

-Peter

On Apr 19, 8:03 am, Adrian Godwin <artgod...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mark Steward

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 4:27:18 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Gavan's hoping to make an 'ON AIR' light.  This is easy now we have instrumentation[1].  However, I'm not sure whether making it more visible won't make it creepier for people when it's on.

Mark



Mark Steward

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 4:32:49 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Prestwick <pud...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.


Was anyone in the space at the time?  Leaving the front door open is bound to happen in summer.

I decided against picking this issue up last time, but someone "staking out the space" only has to watch from Hoxton station or the road outside to determine when the space is empty.  But we're not in a movie.  The real risk to property is opportunistic crime, committed by people wandering through the building (possibly after a previous visit), noticing expensive stuff and grabbing it.  From a practical perspective, the webcams are the all we need against this - it will show us it wasn't a member.


Mark

Prestwick

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 4:56:52 AM4/19/11
to London Hackspace
Oh yeah it was packed (about 1pm Saturday).

Monty

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 5:23:58 AM4/19/11
to London Hackspace
On Apr 19, 8:07 am, Russ Garrett <r...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:
> Perhaps we should make them members-only?

Yes please! Would be nice to stop my boss from checking up on me
outside of work hours...

spooq

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 6:03:54 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
FWIW I have a UPS in my car which I am going to bring to the space. No
clue if it is still viable, it hasn't been used in a while. If it
doesn't work or isn't wanted, I'll dispose of it.

Luke

Sam Cook

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 6:55:43 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
+1 for members only

S

M

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 6:58:54 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
+1 members only

Mark Steward

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 7:05:13 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
I've removed all references from the wiki.  Unfortunately, there are still various links around on the web.


Mark

Sunkzero

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 7:06:55 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
New URLs needed...?



On 19 April 2011 12:05, Mark Steward <marks...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've removed all references from the wiki.  Unfortunately, there are still various links around on the web.


Mark



--
**********

darren....@gmail.com

Russ Garrett

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 7:07:19 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 19 April 2011 12:05, Mark Steward <marks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've removed all references from the wiki.  Unfortunately, there are still
> various links around on the web.

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

Will Pearson

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 7:15:23 AM4/19/11
to London Hackspace


On Apr 19, 12:07 pm, Russ Garrett <r...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19 April 2011 12:05, Mark Steward <markstew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've removed all references from the wiki.  Unfortunately, there are still
> > various links around on the web.
>
> If nobody objects, I can probably secure the page on the hackspace
> site fairly easily so they're only accessible by paying members.

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.

Will

Mark Steward

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 7:17:57 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Will Pearson <wil.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.


Even if we don't do this, I really like it as a general solution.



Sam Cook

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 7:23:42 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Another option could be that we keep one of the cameras public (say the main room) and the others are private; that way people can still look in to a degree but you can't use it to scope the place out and only members can check it all

S

Darren McDonald

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 7:37:06 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
-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.

Renski

Dave Ingram

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 7:49:58 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 04/19/11 12:37, Darren McDonald wrote:
> -1 for members only.
Definite -1 for members only from me.

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

Paul Dart

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 7:54:50 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
-1 Members only

As apparently this is the appropriate way to voice my opinion on these matters.

Elliot West

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 7:56:46 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
-1 for members only

We are an open, public group that wants to encourage people to visit and join. 

To the uninitiated, the outside perception of groups such as ours has in some cases been that of exclusivity, a clique, anti-social, unwelcoming and at worst criminal (i.e computer hacking). IMHO having a publicly accessible window into the space goes along way to demonstrating that we are not any of these things.

Also, I don't buy the security argument. We have lots of other data that leaks from the space that could potentially be used to approximate occupancy. The coverage webcams give provide no certainty that the space is empty and far simpler methods would be employed by a potential thief.

Cheers - Elliot.

Adrian Godwin

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 7:58:18 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Darren McDonald <dar...@dmcdonald.net> wrote:
-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.


I don't care enough either way to add a vote, but I think this is a good argument. If the space had windows on the street, I wouldn't want to put curtains on them.

-adrian

Sam Kelly

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 7:58:54 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
+1 members only iff we do the timed ticket thing. Otherwise, 0.


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

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

Russ Garrett

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 8:23:13 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
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.

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

spooq

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 8:29:15 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 19 April 2011 13:23, Russ Garrett <ru...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

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

M

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 9:03:09 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
When will the cam's have fresh links to them so that they can't be pulled up by google/old bookmarks?

Mark Steward

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 9:19:34 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
I'm going to block direct access to the cameras tonight to deal with the http://hack.rs:8001/ links.  There are still 2 Google results for http://london.hackspace.org.uk/webcams.html and the website source code is of course still on Github.

I'm not going to implement the "vouching" system yet, because it doesn't really solve the nose-picking[1]/one-way mirror issue, and as Russ says there isn't consensus yet on how public they should be.


Mark


[1] Quick reminder of rule 14: http://wiki.hackspace.org.uk/wiki/Rules

Charles Yarnold

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 9:39:40 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
-1 for members only
+1 for allowing non-members to view but not over publicising the links

Katie Sutton

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 10:07:20 AM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 19 April 2011 06:40, Adrian Godwin <artg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:33 AM, <laye...@graffiti.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> I'm not a big fan of street security cameras on general principles either,
> though I guess I've forgotten they're there now.
>
> However, I do like the hackspace cameras : I live far enough away that I
> can't get there as often as I like, and the ability to see stuff going on is
> a huge help in allowing me to be part of the community. I very much doubt
> I'd feel as comfortable with contact only on the mailing list and IRC.
>
> This doesn't mean I watch them all the time (that's discouraged for
> bandwidth reasons and I don't have time anyway) but I do look at one or
> other of them quite frequently. I don't find it particularly interesting to
> watch any one person, and the camera resolution makes that a bit pointless
> anyway. So if I leave the camera pointing at you I apologise for the
> intrusion, but the chances are I'm not looking at it!
>
> -adrian
>
>

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

laye...@graffiti.net

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 12:32:28 PM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
password protected access to webcams anyone? ;)

laye...@graffiti.net

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 1:23:25 PM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
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

Adrian Godwin

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 2:18:59 PM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com


On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:23 PM, <laye...@graffiti.net> wrote:
>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.



No, they shouldn't HAVE to justify why ..

But, I'm curious. What is it about the cameras that makes you feel uncomfortable ? How is it different from being visible through, say, a window ?

For the record, I see the cameras in the hackspace in a totally different way from street cameras. Street cameras are there to regulate behaviour, to cause potential offenders to fear being caught, perhaps to track the movements of numbers of people on the off-chance that some will offend. I dislike this use, but it's not how I see the hackspace cameras - they, to me, are a way of enhancing communication within a community by making it easier to appreciate activities and changes wwhen you're not present. When I am present, they don't cause me any concern, in fact I barely consider them.

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'm interested to know how you, and others who are unhappy about them, see them.

-adrian

Brendan Hickey

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 4:35:36 PM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Adrian Godwin <artg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, I'm curious. What is it about the cameras that makes you feel
> uncomfortable ? How is it different from being visible through, say, a
> window ?

Peeping through a window doesn't create a permanent record of someone
vomiting on Jonty's shoes.

Brendan

Adrian Godwin

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 5:40:53 PM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
I'm not sure about that. it's not an image I'd be able to free myself of easily.

-adrian
 

laye...@graffiti.net

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 5:51:03 PM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
mmm, ok. i try to give you an answer on that.

>What is it about the cameras that makes you feel uncomfortable ? 

i don't like to be on cam, camera-shy me, if i haven't been asked before. whoever it might be. and it's our right to feel so.

i don't like being watched on the internet if i don't know who is watching and i feel it is my right to hide whatever i decide to hide...
especially if someone is making the links to the cameras public on purpose.

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.

maybe a cam in my back makes me not really smile. sorry. especially if i don't know who is watching. 


>How is it different from being visible through, say, a window ?

no difference, and by the way you can't be seen through a window at the hackspace. but if so, i wouldn't sit in a glass cube by choice. as i said i'm shy and some hackers are... :P


>For the record, I see the cameras in the hackspace in a totally different way from street cameras. Street cameras are there to regulate behaviour, to cause potential offenders to fear >being caught, perhaps to track the movements of numbers of people on the off-chance that some will offend. I dislike this use, but it's not how I see the hackspace cameras 

mmm, being watched is being watched.


>they, to me, are a way of enhancing communication within a community by making it easier to appreciate activities and changes wwhen you're not present. When I am present, they don't cause me any concern, in fact I barely consider them.

maybe this concept is to odd to fit into my brain or makes no sense regarding the way i experienced the whole cctv / big brother tv issue so far. 
but that might just be me, maybe i need just more time to adapt (or i might move on).


>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. 

please tell me how you would make the intent known to the unaware, like me?


>I'm interested to know how you, and others who are unhappy about them, see them.

hope it makes sense what i said, if not it might be due to my language skills,
please ask if there's more you want to find out.

cheerio~

C

laye...@graffiti.net

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 6:47:26 PM4/19/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
still discussing it here at the hackspace...

ideas are so far:

- cams on a link to a website reserved just for members

- voting system (1click) 

- u-stream camera footage of events / workshops
@3en you did that before right? can you help out?

- 1 password secured webcam on test mode for all members

i might have forgotten something so please feel free to update it.


cheers,

your 

paranoid humanoid - sunglasses at night - east german - hackspace fan...

C

SheraDreaming

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 10:41:26 PM4/19/11
to London Hackspace
On the flip side, this would just be another straw to encourage people
like myself to formally get a membership. I guess we'd want that.

Although, given that I can only come in once every 6 weeks or so, and
I imagine other users of the cams are similar, I feel like in that
case there should be a special remote membership that's cheaper but
still grants viewing access.

Also, can I just point out that it would be possible to be a member
and have access to additional camera footage without a single person
recognizing your face.

Shera

On Apr 19, 12:37 pm, Darren McDonald <dar...@dmcdonald.net> wrote:
> -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.
>
> Renski
>

George Buckenham

unread,
Apr 20, 2011, 1:50:54 AM4/20/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Previously, the cameras were useful, as they allowed you to check people were in the space. That's less the case now, as there's getting on to be 24 hour usage of the space. 

I know I have weird attitudes to privacy, but I have no problem with being filmed. The objection I have in the case of CCTV in the streets is the asymmetry of power implicit in it - they can watch me, I can't watch them. I usually take this attitude - increased police snooping powers can be matched with increased transparency and accountability in the police. 'course, no-one actually wants to put in those compromises, but that's how I feel of it.

In the case of the space feed - I don't feel it is an imposition of power upon me. Partly, it's because I support it, so I consent to it. And I am equal parts watcher as watched. There's some accountability as to how many people are watching it (but not who, it is true) - type ?watchers into IRC, and it'll give you a count, I believe. Mainly the uses I have seen it used for are - I have shown people it to show them the hackspace (photos and video are cool, but always out of date. And live is still exciting), and it's watched by people on IRC watching the space, and talking about it. And that conversation bleeds into the space via the displayboard, and via the occupants of the space being on IRC - Lovelace usually has XChat working, and we had that lovely serial terminal connected too (whatever happened to that?). It's a natural thing, for a race of people as Internet connected as Hackspace denizens to create a parallel digital space, and I think the cameras are a useful (but not essential) part of gluing the two together.

Plus, the footage is fun to play with with, trying to detect people moving though. And over a long enough time period would be a beautiful showing of how the space has evolved.

--George 

Mark Steward

unread,
Apr 20, 2011, 4:21:10 AM4/20/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:51 PM, <laye...@graffiti.net> wrote:
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 can't stress it enough: nobody is suggesting this.  Everyone has *something* to hide, even if it's just for public decency.

In my view, the cameras are ambient, the kind of thing you'd get in an art installation.  As George says, it's the asymmetric power balance that creates the big brother scenario.  We need to justify their existence by ensuring they remain an interesting toy, and not a threat to anyone's privacy or comfort.  That's why I agree the links shouldn't be shared without care, why I'm happy to help limiting it to members if that's agreed on, and why I find surprising that we haven't really discussed it before.

>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. 

We've already had occasions where people have been inappropriate with the camera, and we made it clear at the time that the cameras operate on sufferance.  If we can't control them, we should get rid of them, or replace them with a real CCTV system limited to directors or something.


Mark

Earthshine

unread,
Apr 20, 2011, 4:38:03 AM4/20/11
to London Hackspace
-1 for members only.

I don't have any issues with the cameras at all. Also, they have
always been there so if you join the space you are agreeing to be on
the camera. if you don't like that, then don't join. It's not as if
you are going to go to the space to do anything you wouldn't want
anyone else to see anyway.

Jim MacArthur

unread,
Apr 20, 2011, 4:50:21 AM4/20/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
replace them with a real CCTV system limited to directors or something.


I would consider that to be far more worrying than the current situation, for the reasons George mentioned. 

I'd prefer no cameras than that we lose any members over it, but I consider the public cameras a good thing. I don't have any expectations of privacy in the space.

-1 for members only. 

 

Darren McDonald

unread,
Apr 20, 2011, 5:02:49 AM4/20/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

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

Dirk-Willem van Gulik

unread,
Apr 20, 2011, 5:12:11 AM4/20/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
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.

Katie Sutton

unread,
Apr 20, 2011, 8:34:38 AM4/20/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

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.

tom

unread,
Apr 20, 2011, 8:41:36 AM4/20/11
to London Hackspace
+1 for IDGAF

On Apr 20, 1:34 pm, 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.
>
> --
> Katie Suttonhttp://tajasel.org

cepm...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
Apr 20, 2011, 8:07:39 PM4/20/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Ditto
No change needed :-)


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/

Martin Klang

unread,
Apr 21, 2011, 11:08:48 AM4/21/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

let's be clear here that the cameras _do_ put people off.

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

Mike

unread,
Apr 21, 2011, 11:29:44 AM4/21/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:32:28PM -0400, laye...@graffiti.net wrote:
> password protected access to webcams anyone? ;)
>

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.

signature.asc

Charles Yarnold

unread,
Apr 21, 2011, 11:37:06 AM4/21/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
I find it strange that the cameras have become such an issue, they were present a few weeks after moving into our first space, and were setup again as soon as we moved into the new space.

Did people not spot them before becoming a part of the community after they were installed? If they were such an issue to people why did they join?

Personally, they are too low rez to reveal what's on my screen, if my boss wants to know if i'm in the space they can just call on the phone, give a fake name and ask to speak to me. I see the space as a public space, anyone can come along if their is a member present, so I have no expectation of privacy (apart from on the loo). The most someone can work out from the cams is if i'm in the space, and a guess at what i'm doing, and I have no problems with that.

Meh

Sol

Robert Leverington

unread,
Apr 21, 2011, 12:05:38 PM4/21/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
I was initially apathetic about this issue, but this argument has
convinced me that this is perhaps something we should change.

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

George Buckenham

unread,
Apr 21, 2011, 12:20:59 PM4/21/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
It may be worth noting that the cameras are within spitting distance of being members only - there's no link on the website or the wiki. I believe plans were in place to robots.txt it, which'll remove it from Google. I would estimate less than 10% of usage is from people not on #london-hack-space. There's no guarantees, and there are technical solutions we can implement - time-expiring keys served up by a bot on #london-hack-space. I don't think these will make much practical difference, as stated. But they're possible.

Personally, I'm happy for the links to be as public as possible. I like being able to point people at a link and say "here is the hackspace, right now, people are working on this or that, or having dancing-cock-out times, or whatever interesting thing people are up to."

On and while I for sure welcome us getting lots of pictures of the space, the space changes quickly enough that I think they'll always be out of date. So that's not a perfect solution there. But probably good enough?

--G

Russ Garrett

unread,
Apr 21, 2011, 12:51:38 PM4/21/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 21 April 2011 16:08, Martin Klang <ma...@pingdynasty.com> wrote:
> 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.

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

Charles Yarnold

unread,
Apr 21, 2011, 1:01:35 PM4/21/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
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... 

Adrian Godwin

unread,
Apr 21, 2011, 1:16:24 PM4/21/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com


On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Russ Garrett <ru...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:
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 think 'shiny!' is an explanation both close to the truth and easily understood by other hackers.

-adrian

Kieran

unread,
Apr 21, 2011, 1:27:47 PM4/21/11