[Noisebridge-discuss] KISS solution to Access control & Safety

maestro maestro415 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 9 17:41:53 PST 2012


# let's not forget in this maelstrom there are A LOT of people including
young kids (that often arrive at least initially unaccompanied) that come
on weekends and special days/nights only and don't follow the lists...
# they will have no idea what's going on...
# some are coming from other cities...

end comments

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:10 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:

>
>    I think it's okay that the upstairs door is locked but
> the elevator is (theoretically) accessible. Only the
> intrepid will try the elevator, and there's some chance
> that the elevator won't work at the time the intrepid bad
> personage tries to use it. Overall the scheme has a pretty
> good filtering affect of keeping drunks and incompetents
> more nearly at bay.
>    The idea isn't perfect, but it seems an improvement over
> the way things are. Maybe at some future time we could deal
> with elevator access and control (e.g. locked doors on the
> roomlet where the trash and elevator are).
>
>    One angle we should consider with respect to the street-
> facing door is our downstairs neighbors: don't want to lock
> them out.
>    (Another angle is community geekiness unintentionally
> excludes those who are not technically equipped to use the
> particular chosen technology; another is that the more
> complex, the greater the risk of failure; another is the
> more homebrewable, the greater the risk of our hacking
> ourselves out of access on a regular basis...).
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 15:43 -0800, Tom wrote:
> > Any system that relies on the security of the upstairs door faces the
> > problem the the elevator goes from outside that door to inside that
> > door.
> >
> > I very much like Kelly's proposal. I don' t think that we should aim
> > to remove the buzzer entirely, just make it's use sufficiently rare
> > that folks are skeptical and quizzical when letting people in. This
> > might extend to use of the camera, or even talking to people that are
> > let in.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >            Anything that involves software is unlikely to
> >         be KISS-compliant.
> >            I like the idea that the upstairs door is always
> >         locked and whoever's on the inside must let the
> >         outside person in. It's not perfect, but it's not
> >         the enemy of the good, either.
> >            Some last person leaving the space empty? Oh,
> >         well; next person's gotta wait for someone who's got
> >         a key. Unlikely to wait longer than for a muni bus.
> >
> >
> >
> >         On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 13:24 -0800, Kelly wrote:
> >         > I am getting together a group, rooted in the social
> >         engineering group,
> >         > to implement a doorcode system modeled after the system at
> >         Essex hot
> >         > tub in Berkeley. They have a large set of virally
> >         distributed codes.
> >         > Community regulars often have several codes. When there is a
> >         problem
> >         > night, all codes used that night are disabled.
> >         >
> >         > I would welcome help on this project. There should be a bit
> >         more
> >         > description of it in the notes from this week's meeting.
> >         Probably get
> >         > on the social engineering mailing list if you want to keep
> >         up on
> >         > progress.
> >         >
> >         > I figure hard key use would remain the same. Doorcodes would
> >         replace
> >         > the buzzer and would provide temporary access that people
> >         can
> >         > comfortably distribute freely. I think there will still be
> >         some issues
> >         > to work out, but I think it will address several of our
> >         problems.
> >         > Right now the big question is whether we can spread codes
> >         widely
> >         > enough to remove the doorbell entirely. That's my hope.
> >         >
> >         > -Kelly
> >         >
> >         > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:15, Casey Callendrello
> >         <c1 at caseyc.net> wrote:
> >         > > Oh, this is such an awesome idea. Indoors, a keypad is
> >         easy. Alternatively,
> >         > > we could hook up that A-key switch...
> >         > >
> >         > > -c.
> >         > >
> >         > >
> >         > > On 2/9/2012 9:57 AM, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:
> >         > >
> >         > > What about a code being required in order to operate the
> >         buzzer from the
> >         > > inside, ie you need to know a code to let other people in?
> >         > >
> >         > > mediumreality.com
> >         > >
> >         > > On Feb 8, 2012 12:45 PM, "Jonathan Lassoff"
> >         <jof at thejof.com> wrote:
> >         > >>
> >         > >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:43 PM, girlgeek
> >         <girlgeek at wt.net> wrote:
> >         > >> > A variant on this suggestion:
> >         > >> > If an unknown person hits the buzzer,  instead of
> >         someone having to go
> >         > >> > downstairs, they can be let up and greeted at the hall
> >         door with another
> >         > >> > locked door and doorbell.  They can then be vetted
> >         upstairs.  I'm lazy.
> >         > >>
> >         > >> That would make great use of our way-awesome porthole
> >         window.
> >         > >>
> >         > >> Why did the lock on the top-of-stairs door ever get taken
> >         off?
> >         > >>
> >         > >> --j
> >         > >> _______________________________________________
> >         > >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >         > >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >         > >>
> >         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >         > >
> >         > >
> >         > >
> >         > > _______________________________________________
> >         > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >         > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >         > >
> >         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >         > >
> >         > >
> >         > >
> >         > > _______________________________________________
> >         > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >         > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >         > >
> >         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >         > >
> >         > _______________________________________________
> >         > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >         > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >         >
> >         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >         Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20120209/400da316/attachment.htm 


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list