Changes

== Background ==

== Background ==

This vote changes the Membership Agreement regarding placement of surveillance cameras. At present, the board has the authority to place surveillance cameras anywhere to monitor public areas. To date, cameras have only been installed to monitor the building's entrances and exits and the server room. However, some public areas are more sensitive than others, e.g. areas in the facility where members commonly work or socialize. This vote requires a higher standard to place, move, or remove such cameras.

This vote changes the Membership Agreement regarding placement of surveillance cameras. At present, the board has the authority to place surveillance cameras anywhere to monitor public areas. To date, cameras have only been installed to monitor the building's entrances and exits and the server room. However, some public areas are more sensitive than others, e.g. areas in the facility where members commonly work or socialize. This vote requires a higher standard to place, move, or remove such cameras.

Any installation of a surveillance camera requires a careful consideration of the risks it presents vs. the benefit it offers.  

Any installation of a surveillance camera requires a careful consideration of the risks it presents vs. the benefit it offers.  

While the Membership Agreement places strict controls on access to surveillance camera footage, one cannot entirely discount the possibility that such footage could be misused by an authorized individual, or disclosed via a security compromise. Areas such as the exterior doors likely have little value to a bad actor. However, cameras monitoring the interior of the building, where members work and socialize, has more potential for misuse. For example, such unauthorized access could be used to facilitate a bad actor stalking of members or compromising intellectual property.

While the Membership Agreement places strict controls on access to surveillance camera footage, one cannot entirely discount the possibility that such footage could be misused by an authorized individual, or disclosed via a security compromise. Areas such as the exterior doors likely have little value to a bad actor. However, cameras monitoring the interior of the building, where members work and socialize, has more potential for misuse. For example, such unauthorized access could be used to facilitate a bad actor stalking other members or compromising intellectual property.

Benefit needs to be considered carefully. Cameras are limited by line of sight and resolution. Further, effort is necessary to retrieve and review footage. Such effort may be significant if the time window of the incident being investigated is large. Given that, at present, footage must be reviewed manually by trusted volunteers, the value to the organization of the investigation should exceed the value of the volunteer effort to review the footage.

Benefit needs to be considered carefully. Cameras are limited by line of sight and resolution. Further, effort is necessary to retrieve and review footage. Such effort may be significant if the time window of the incident being investigated is large. At present, footage must be reviewed manually by trusted volunteers, so the value to the organization of the investigation should exceed the value of the volunteer effort to review the footage.

This risk/benefit evaluation is difficult. As such, the vote changes the voting process regarding security camera installation, movement, or removal, depending on several factors:

This risk/benefit evaluation is difficult. This vote changes the voting process regarding security camera installation, movement, or removal, depending on several factors:

* Building entrances and exits are already monitored. The loss of privacy to the membership here is small, as is the risk for misuse. AT the same time, these cameras may deter theft of larger tools. Entrances and exits, the exterior of the building (e.g. the alley), and infrastructure used by the camera system all pose the least risk to the membership, so the board has the power to place, move, and remove cameras here.

* Building entrances and exits are already monitored. The loss of privacy to the membership here is small, as is the risk for misuse. AT the same time, these cameras may deter theft of larger tools. Entrances and exits, the exterior of the building (e.g. the alley), and infrastructure used by the camera system all pose the least risk to the membership, so the board has the power to place, move, and remove such cameras.

* Other interior building spaces, such as where members work or socialize, are much more sensitive. Consent of both the board and the membership, determined by both a board vote and a member vote, is necessary to place such cameras. This prevents the board from placing such cameras over the objection of the majority of the membership, and it requires the board to make a case to the membership regarding why each new camera is necessary.

* Other interior building spaces, such as where members work or socialize, are much more sensitive. Consent of both the board and the membership, determined by both a board vote and a member vote, is necessary to place, move, and remove such cameras. This prevents the board from placing such cameras over the objection of the majority of the membership, and it requires the board to make a case to the membership regarding why each new camera is necessary.

* An exception exists for cameras required by contract, law, regulation, or insurance. In such cases, the directors have full authority.

* An exception exists for cameras required by contract, law, regulation, or insurance. For example, a new lease or a new insurance policy may require cameras monitoring the workshops. If such an event happened, then the directors, by vote, would have full authority regarding their installation, movement, and removal.

== Language ==

== Language ==

Abstain: TBD

Abstain: TBD

[[Category:Votes]][[Category:2019 Votes]]

 

 

[[category:2019 votes open]]