[NotAtWork]

Let's take an extreme:

What if MIT were logging who went to the bathroom?

There's clearly no fundamental difference in securing a different part of the building. Does Mr Stallman (or perhaps an employee of the building if he's just a third party) not have a basis to criticize MITs tracking of bathroom habits because he (or they) don't own the building?

In what way is door access different?

[superuser2]

Because going to the bathroom is not directly productive, employees would see logging of bathroom usage as an attempt to improve productivity by encouraging people not to stick out as using the bathroom too often. That would be indicative of a larger cultural problem wherein management is trying to squeeze every last drop of productivity out of employees, generally by eliminating small pleasures like office social interaction and the ability to momentarily relax.

Indicating to MIT professors that they can't be trusted to use the bathroom responsibly is stupid because the consequences of "bathroom abuse" are very low - hell, who knows how many Nobel-prize-winning ideas were developed on the toilet. Further, they're not being paid to be present and take calls/help customers/make widgets. They're being paid to produce research findings. So even if they are spending all day in the bathrooms, as long as they're publishing, who cares?

Think about it like your house. I'll happily have keys made for extended family and close friends who are staying over. I know them, we will have an ongoing positive relationship, and I trust them. But what about the cleaning service? What about contractors? What about Airbnb guests? Given a checkbox, I'd definitely choose to log their entires. I probably wouldn't read the logs, but I'd feel better knowing they existed.

Before you say NSA, I'm collecting data on my house, not all the other houses on the block. I get to do that. There is no right to enter my house without letting met know about it.

This is MIT's house.

[joezydeco]

I don't think we're talking about bathroom hygenic habits here, so let's skip that derail.

Stallman's thesis is "logs have no use". I'm sure the building's owners disagree. Let's think of a possible use-case:

  "Someone stole a laptop from Room 214 over the weekend"

So are the logs useful now?

[ShaneOG]

Most likely, not very.

Do you honestly think someone who wants to steal a computer will use their own access card?

[freiheit]

If the area/door is busy, they just might. Or they might tailgate through a door.

Tailgating through doors is a lot harder when everybody knows that the doors log everything.

[at-fates-hands]

I think you'd be surprised how many people never think about details like that in the commission of a crime. Also, stealing laptops and computer equipment are crimes of opportunity and rarely do people plan out extensively how they can get away with something like that before they do it.

[middleclick]

Maybe the person before me took the laptop and I didn't notice? Or maybe the person before that? If a laptop is reported missing, there is no definite proof that the person who entered previous to the one who noticed that the laptop missing took it. Correlation does not equal causation.

[superuser2]

No, but it narrows down the list from hundreds to a few.