I appreciate the fact-finding you did, and agree with some of your conclusions such as the 10-day limit is not a useful restriction. I saw the facebook post you made on the NOM group and thoughtfully read the replies from other makerspaces.
I disagree with this new policy. It sounds like Security chafed at the existing restrictions, some of which could reasonably stand to be updated, and it was easier to say “lets gut the policy and let them handle it.” I recognize the sentiment to “let them do the unpaid job we entrusted them to do” but part of being in an oversight position is saying no when appropriate. We don’t let people use a laser cutter without a detailed access policy, why should access to a powerful security system be any different?
I am particularly concerned there is no statement of when it is and isn’t appropriate to access live-viewing, especially off-site viewing of the cameras. When a security lead has free time and is bored, only when an alarm goes off, when, why?
There isn’t any oversight over who accesses the cameras, one security lead can just hand-off access to another, no reporting to the board is needed. Just a blank check to do whatever, whenever, with whoever.
I presented a few scenarios in the admin list of how this system could be abused, chiefly that a man could use the system to spy on a woman in the makerspace without her knowledge. The issue of background checks was brought up a few years ago, to my knowledge we are not performing those on either general members or members of security. We also learned that our insurance does not cover sexual offenses committed by a member at MakeICT.
Take a look at this article by the ACLU about abuses of CCTV. The arguments here are about government abuses, but most carry-over to the private world as well, particularly about voyeurism, personal abuses, and discriminatory targeting.
The escalation of power of one group of members, without any oversight whatsoever, is deeply troubling. I would remind you why the three nerd rule exists, because entrusting one person or small group to dispose of small-change property wasn’t feasible and was abused. We have a detailed policy to get rid of a ping-pong table, but not to protect our members from abuse of a powerful tool.
This policy is an abdication of oversight and would be a mistake to enact.