sudo-discuss

sudo-discuss@sudoroom.org

6 participants
7255 discussions

[HELP] Oak Tech teacher requests space 6hrs/1x/month **starting Sunday**

by Vicky Knox

Do you all have any recommendations on how to expedite this? What is the current status of the large room and using it for events? For background, this teacher origianally contacted info@sudoroom but never got a response, and called the SR number today, slightly frantic. I think it would be really awesome if we were able to help her out. This event seems quite an incredible opportunity for young people. ykciV ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Vivian Pustell <vivian.pustell(a)ousd.k12.ca.us> Date: Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:16 PM Subject: Space use? To: info(a)sudoroom.org Hi Sudo Room! I'm a teacher at Oakland Tech High, not far from you. I've organized a team of students who are all taking part in the CyberPatriot info sec competition. They're training really hard--and learning a lot--so that they can enter the competition. We've run into a stumbling block, though--the competition windows for reach round are always on a weekend, and the school district has informed me that I can't use the school on the weekend without paying. We are a small group--me, our mentor, and about four students--and we need space to compete once a month (with one month where we compete twice) for about six hours on a Sunday afternoon. Is there any way we can negotiate use of some space at a reasonable rate? They're really excited about this, but I'm afraid we might not have a place to meet and compete if I can't find a space we can afford. Thanks so much for any consideration you can give to us, or any suggestions for other locations we might try! Best, -Vivienne Pustell Teacher, OTHS

11 years, 3 months

George says "Rent is late. If not paid by Oct 15 3pm, then 5% late fee".

by Max Klein

George has just said that to me in sudo Oct 14, 3:20pm. What is current status? If not enough, I will issue sudo an interest free loan to avoid late fee. Max

11 years, 3 months

Can BAPS share SUDO table at Anarchist Bookfair?

by David Keenan

hey guys, Public School just found out apparently there is no room for us this year at the Bookfair.. strange! And very sad! Is there any way the Public School might squish into the SUDO table at the bookfair super ultra pretty pleaze? sadness, David

11 years, 3 months

Breaking: Oakland to lead country in diverting anti-terror funding to ubiquitous warrantless surveillance

by Eddan Katz

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/technology/privacy-fears-as-surveillance-… October 13, 2013 Privacy Fears as Surveillance Grows in Cities By SOMINI SENGUPTA OAKLAND, Calif. — Federal grants of $7 million awarded to this city were meant largely to help thwart terror attacks at its bustling port. But instead, the money is going to a police initiative that will collect and analyze reams of surveillance data from around town — from gunshot-detection sensors in the barrios of East Oakland to license plate readers mounted on police cars patrolling the city’s upscale hills. The new system, scheduled to begin next summer, is the latest example of how cities are compiling and processing large amounts of information, known as big data, for routine law enforcement. And the system underscores how technology has enabled the tracking of people in many aspects of life. The police can monitor a fire hose of social media posts to look for evidence of criminal activities; transportation agencies can track commuters’ toll payments when drivers use an electronic pass; and the National Security Agency, as news reports this summer revealed, scooped up telephone records of millions of cellphone customers in the United States. Like the Oakland effort, other pushes to use new surveillance tools in law enforcement are supported with federal dollars. The New York Police Department, aided by federal financing, has a big data system that links 3,000 surveillance cameras with license plate readers, radiation sensors, criminal databases and terror suspect lists. Police in Massachusetts have used federal money to buy automated license plate scanners. And police in Texas have bought a drone with homeland security money, something that Alameda County, which Oakland is part of, also tried but shelved after public protest. Proponents of the Oakland initiative, formally known as the Domain Awareness Center, say it will help the police reduce the city’s notoriously high crime rates. But critics say the program, which will create a central repository of surveillance information, will also gather data about the everyday movements and habits of law-abiding residents, raising legal and ethical questions about tracking people so closely. Libby Schaaf, an Oakland City Council member, said that because of the city’s high crime rate, “it’s our responsibility to take advantage of new tools that become available.” She added, though, that the center would be able to “paint a pretty detailed picture of someone’s personal life, someone who may be innocent.” For example, if two men were caught on camera at the port stealing goods and driving off in a black Honda sedan, Oakland authorities could look up where in the city the car had been in the last several weeks. That could include stoplights it drove past each morning and whether it regularly went to see Oakland A’s baseball games. For law enforcement, data mining is a big step toward more complete intelligence gathering. The police have traditionally made arrests based on small bits of data — witness testimony, logs of license plate readers, footage from a surveillance camera perched above a bank machine. The new capacity to collect and sift through all that information gives the authorities a much broader view of the people they are investigating. For the companies that make big data tools, projects like Oakland’s are a big business opportunity. Microsoft built the technology for the New York City program. I.B.M. has sold data-mining tools for Las Vegas and Memphis. Oakland has a contract with the Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC, to build its system. That company has earned the bulk of its $12 billion in annual revenue from military contracts. As the federal military budget has fallen, though, SAIC has diversified to other government agency projects, though not without problems. The company’s contract to help modernize the New York City payroll system, using new technology like biometric readers, resulted in reports of kickbacks. Last year, the company paid the city $500 million to avoid a federal prosecution. The amount was believed to be the largest ever paid to settle accusations of government contract fraud. SAIC declined to comment. Even before the initiative, Oakland spent millions of dollars on traffic cameras, license plate readers and a network of sound sensors to pick up gunshots. Still, the city has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country. And an internal audit in August 2012 found that the police had spent $1.87 million on technology tools that did not work properly or remained unused because their vendors had gone out of business. The new center will be far more ambitious. From a central location, it will electronically gather data around the clock from a variety of sensors and databases, analyze that data and display some of the information on a bank of giant monitors. The city plans to staff the center around the clock. If there is an incident, workers can analyze the many sources of data to give leads to the police, fire department or Coast Guard. In the absence of an incident, how the data would be used and how long it would be kept remain largely unclear. The center will collect feeds from cameras at the port, traffic cameras, license plate readers and gunshot sensors. The center will also be integrated next summer with a database that allows police to tap into reports of 911 calls. Renee Domingo, the city’s emergency services coordinator, said school surveillance cameras, as well as video data from the regional commuter rail system and state highways, may be added later. Far less advanced surveillance programs have elicited resistance at the local and state level. Iowa City, for example, recently imposed a moratorium on some surveillance devices, including license plate readers. The Seattle City Council forced its police department to return a federally financed drone to the manufacturer. In Virginia, the state police purged a database of millions of license plates collected by cameras, including some at political rallies, after the state’s attorney general said the method of collecting and saving the data violated state law. But for a cash-starved city like Oakland, the expectation of more federal financing makes the project particularly attractive. The City Council approved the program in late July, but public outcry later compelled the council to add restrictions. The council instructed public officials to write a policy detailing what kind of data could be collected and protected, and how it could be used. The council expects the privacy policy to be ready before the center can start operations. The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California described the program as “warrantless surveillance” and said “the city would be able to collect and stockpile comprehensive information about Oakland residents who have engaged in no wrongdoing.” The port’s chief security officer, Michael O’Brien, sought to allay fears, saying the center was meant to hasten law-enforcement response time to crimes and emergencies. “It’s not to spy on people,” he said. Steve Spiker, research and technology director at the Urban Strategies Council, an Oakland nonprofit organization that has examined the effectiveness of police technology tools, said he was uncomfortable with city officials knowing so much about his movements. But, he said, there is already so much public data that it makes sense to enable government officials to collect and analyze it for the public good. Still, he would like to know how all that data would be kept and shared. “What happens,” he wondered, “when someone doesn’t like me and has access to all that information?”

11 years, 3 months

Fwd: {BayAreaPublicSchool} After School Tutoring @ The Holdout

by Jenny Ryan

This is really rad! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lindsey Boldt <lindsbo(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:33 AM Subject: {BayAreaPublicSchool} After School Tutoring @ The Holdout To: bayareapublicschool(a)googlegroups.com Hey BAPSters, Do folks already know that The Holdout Social Center (http://theholdout.org/) is now providing after school tutoring for youth? Very exciting! I know some folks involved with BAPS have expressed an interest in working with Oakland youth, especially in a non-school setting, so this would be a great opportunity to do that. Tutors are needed and welcome. They're currently offering homework help and youth programming "such as Youth Power and Healthy Hoods" on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3-6pm. Here's a link to their fundraising page. http://www.razoo.com/story/Holdout-Tutoring?referral_code=share They're currently trying to raise money for books, supplies and healthy snacks. They're also looking for donations of: Nourishing Snacks, Pencils/ Pens/ Paper, Books, Crayons/ Colored Pencils, Scissors/ Glue, AND tutors! I personally have not been over to check it out yet, but am excited by the prospect of a radical space like The Holdout offering something as necessary as homework help to the immediate community surrounding its space. So cool! All best and happy weekend all, Lindsey -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome to the Bay Area Public School email list To post to this group, send email to bayareapublicschool(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bayareapublicschool+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/bayareapublicschool?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BayAreaPublicSchool" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bayareapublicschool+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

11 years, 3 months

Sunday dinner

by mattsenate＠gmail.com

At my house tonight at 7pm, 359 Bellevue, Oakland. // Matt

11 years, 3 months

proposal to increase membership at noisebridge by changing the rules

by Jake

currently noisebridge is used by 99% non-Members, 1% Members. currently, 99% of noisebridge Members do not use noisebridge. currently, Membership at noisebridge requires ongoing cash flow into noisebridge either by tradition or rules, it is not clear which. I think this is not working out. Noisebridge's rent gets paid but the people who come to noisebridge have zero motivation to become a member, and so they don't bother. We should be adding several new members weekly. Membership at Noisebridge should be a valuable tool to encourage cooperation and a sense of belonging, while reinforcing accountability and support between users of the space (including Members and Guests) There is no reason for membership to be tied to giving money to noisebridge. If someone is excellent and wants to be a part of noisebridge, and no Member blocks them, they should be allowed to join. Members should remain in good standing regardless of their financial contributions as long as they are remaining excellent and accountable for their actions, and those of their guests. I propose that Noisebridge change the rules of Membership to do away with the cash flow requirement, and to expressly do away with the informal and inappropriate "bribe", which defeats the purpose of asking the potential member to step out while their membership is consensed upon _or_not_. We agreed last week to close noisebridge to non-Members from 23:00 to 10:00 every day, with the exception of guests of Members and Members-in-Application who have two signatures. We will be able to take advantage of this policy by encouraging more SUPPORTERS of noisebridge to become Members. We can do this by removing the payment requirement. If people want to support Noisebridge with money, they should feel free to do so, whether they are Members or not. If people want to support Noisebridge with their presence, excellence, and accountability to one another, they should feel free to do so, whether they are in a position to supply cash or not. I think this should be obvious. I ask that absentee Members, who have been unable or unmotivated to offer their support in the form of their presence, excellence, and accountability, please stand aside from this proposal if they have objections (or offer friendly amendments in the spirit of problem solving). People who are not regularly using the space should not stand in the way of improvements to be made by those who do use and contribute to the space regularly. The proposal should be worded as follows: Membership to Noisebridge should no longer be dependant on a person's ability or willingness to pay money to noisebridge, or to bring food or beer to a meeting, but only on their ability to acquire sponsorship signatures and be consensed upon at a meeting, after leaving the meeting to give opportunity for any objections to be discussed before they return. Members will thus enter and remain in good standing without regard to any financial contributions they do or do not make in that time. -jake

11 years, 3 months

Table at the East Bay Anarchist Bookfair

by Gregg Horton

I got ya'll a table, so just show up with stuff to table with. i'm not going to be at tonight's meeting but people should talk about what should go on the table and if you wanted to share it with other hackerspaces. http://eastbayanarchist.com/

11 years, 3 months

digital duplicator

by johanna faust

i have one in storage, it works and i am pretty sure it is available for the following offer. it is well worth it should vast copies of *some awesome sudoroomian publication* need duplication. fraction of a penny per pAge. get in touch; i cannot personally transport it at this time (both because I haven't the truck and due to physical limitations) but AFAIK it can be set up *in situ*. for b&w copies, at least for the first rationally sized run, just add paper (no i cannot define rationally at the moment; but i can certainly find out). -- *Be seeing you.*

11 years, 3 months

Revenge Porn

by Eddan Katz

CA Senate Bill SB-255 - now §647(j)(4) as of Oct. 1 - is first 'revenge porn' law in the US. Eric Goldman (awesome Santa Clara Law prof) has an interesting analysis on the legal implications - http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/10/08/californias-new-law-show…. If anyone has some technical observations or other feedback, I'd be interested to hear other takes on this. Seems like a very tricky socio-technical problem. §647 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000… > 647. Except as provided in subdivision (l), every person who > commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a > misdemeanor: > (a) Who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or > dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the > public or exposed to public view. > (b) Who solicits or who agrees to engage in or who engages in any > act of prostitution. A person agrees to engage in an act of > prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, he or she > manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation to so engage, > regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person > who also possessed the specific intent to engage in prostitution. No > agreement to engage in an act of prostitution shall constitute a > violation of this subdivision unless some act, in addition to the > agreement, is done within this state in furtherance of the commission > of an act of prostitution by the person agreeing to engage in that > act. As used in this subdivision, "prostitution" includes any lewd > act between persons for money or other consideration. > (c) Who accosts other persons in any public place or in any place > open to the public for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms. > (d) Who loiters in or about any toilet open to the public for the > purpose of engaging in or soliciting any lewd or lascivious or any > unlawful act. > (e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, > whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or > person entitled to the possession or in control of it. > (f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of > intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any > combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance, > or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care > for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of > his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any > drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any > intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs > or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public > way. > (g) When a person has violated subdivision (f), a peace officer, > if he or she is reasonably able to do so, shall place the person, or > cause him or her to be placed, in civil protective custody. The > person shall be taken to a facility, designated pursuant to Section > 5170 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, for the 72-hour treatment > and evaluation of inebriates. A peace officer may place a person in > civil protective custody with that kind and degree of force which > would be lawful were he or she effecting an arrest for a misdemeanor > without a warrant. No person who has been placed in civil protective > custody shall thereafter be subject to any criminal prosecution or > juvenile court proceeding based on the facts giving rise to this > placement. This subdivision shall not apply to the following persons: > (1) Any person who is under the influence of any drug, or under > the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and any drug. > (2) Any person who a peace officer has probable cause to believe > has committed any felony, or who has committed any misdemeanor in > addition to subdivision (f). > (3) Any person who a peace officer in good faith believes will > attempt escape or will be unreasonably difficult for medical > personnel to control. > (h) Who loiters, prowls, or wanders upon the private property of > another, at any time, without visible or lawful business with the > owner or occupant. As used in this subdivision, "loiter" means to > delay or linger without a lawful purpose for being on the property > and for the purpose of committing a crime as opportunity may be > discovered. > (i) Who, while loitering, prowling, or wandering upon the private > property of another, at any time, peeks in the door or window of any > inhabited building or structure, without visible or lawful business > with the owner or occupant. > (j) (1) Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or > otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not > limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion > picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a > bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or > tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the > occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to > invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision > shall not apply to those areas of a private business used to count > currency or other negotiable instruments. > (2) Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture > camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, > film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, > identifiable person under or through the clothing being worn by that > other person, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the > undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or > knowledge of that other person, with the intent to arouse, appeal to, > or gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person and > invade the privacy of that other person, under circumstances in which > the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. > (3) (A) Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture > camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, > film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, > identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress, > for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn > by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other > person, in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, > fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any > other area in which that other person has a reasonable expectation > of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other > person. > (B) Neither of the following is a defense to the crime specified > in this paragraph: > (i) The defendant was a cohabitant, landlord, tenant, cotenant, > employer, employee, or business partner or associate of the victim, > or an agent of any of these. > (ii) The victim was not in a state of full or partial undress. > (k) In any accusatory pleading charging a violation of subdivision > (b), if the defendant has been once previously convicted of a > violation of that subdivision, the previous conviction shall be > charged in the accusatory pleading. If the previous conviction is > found to be true by the jury, upon a jury trial, or by the court, > upon a court trial, or is admitted by the defendant, the defendant > shall be imprisoned in a county jail for a period of not less than 45 > days and shall not be eligible for release upon completion of > sentence, on probation, on parole, on work furlough or work release, > or on any other basis until he or she has served a period of not less > than 45 days in a county jail. In all cases in which probation is > granted, the court shall require as a condition thereof that the > person be confined in a county jail for at least 45 days. In no event > does the court have the power to absolve a person who violates this > subdivision from the obligation of spending at least 45 days in > confinement in a county jail. > In any accusatory pleading charging a violation of subdivision > (b), if the defendant has been previously convicted two or more times > of a violation of that subdivision, each of these previous > convictions shall be charged in the accusatory pleading. If two or > more of these previous convictions are found to be true by the jury, > upon a jury trial, or by the court, upon a court trial, or are > admitted by the defendant, the defendant shall be imprisoned in a > county jail for a period of not less than 90 days and shall not be > eligible for release upon completion of sentence, on probation, on > parole, on work furlough or work release, or on any other basis until > he or she has served a period of not less than 90 days in a county > jail. In all cases in which probation is granted, the court shall > require as a condition thereof that the person be confined in a > county jail for at least 90 days. In no event does the court have the > power to absolve a person who violates this subdivision from the > obligation of spending at least 90 days in confinement in a county > jail. > In addition to any punishment prescribed by this section, a court > may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of the person > to operate a motor vehicle pursuant to Section 13201.5 of the Vehicle > Code for any violation of subdivision (b) that was committed within > 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle. In > lieu of the suspension, the court may order a person's privilege to > operate a motor vehicle restricted, for not more than six months, to > necessary travel to and from the person's place of employment or > education. If driving a motor vehicle is necessary to perform the > duties of the person's employment, the court may also allow the > person to drive in that person's scope of employment. > (l) (1) A second or subsequent violation of subdivision (j) is > punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, > or by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by both > that fine and imprisonment. > (2) If the victim of a violation of subdivision (j) was a minor at > the time of the offense, the violation is punishable by imprisonment > in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding > two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. > >

11 years, 3 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

sudo-discuss