Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

defcon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 260 posts

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#81

Post by mcantelon »

res0nat0r wrote: post #79
mcantelon wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>many, though, actually do work for defense and intelligence contractors. Should they be banned because of their affiliation? Absolutely. The hacker community should not contribute to the knowledge of those who work to undermine privacy and feed the surveillance-industrial complex.

James Bamford pointed out in The Shadow Factory (back in 2008), that much of the "surveillance-industrial complex" is outsourced and that much of this bleeding edge tech is in fact coming from private companies (Narus, companies originating from Israel, etc). Should DEFCON setup a review board to ban employees from private companies they also don't agree with?

Why not? Contributing to the knowledge of companies such at Narus is detrimental to the good of humanity.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#82

Post by throwawayDC21 »

david_shaw wrote: post #61
merlincorey wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure this is a joke since DT himself can be considered a fed, and there are lots of Defcon leadership that work with/for the feds as well.

I considered that. And yeah, DT is definitely a federal employee. I guess it depends on what you consider a 'fed.' Is a sysadmin at NASA a Fed? They are employed by the federal government... Law enforcement--especially intelligence--is not going to be particularly well received this year. In the years I've attended, it's always a friendly sort of cat and mouse game. "You're the Fed, I'm the hacker, let's get a beer!"…

Yes Gen. Alexander is still speaking at Black Hat. I'm not sure that DT has the influence inside Black Hat that he once did. I would be interested to see how that talk goes down, but then BH has never been about "hackers" in the way that DEF CON is

There appears to be a distinct effort to separate BH and DC this year, there is less speaker overlap compared with previous years, attendance to BH doesn't get you in to DC like it used to, etc. This is probably UBM (owners of the BH brand) trying to protect their revenue.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#83

Post by mcantelon »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #16
typicalrunt wrote: post #13

I applaud Jeff's (DarkTangent) stance on this. I've been to 7 Defcons now and the Feds have always been treated fairly. Even the media has been treated with respect, so long as they are transparent and honest about being media [1]. Honesty and openness have been betrayed this year with the Snowden leaks, and I'm glad people are finally taking a stand. I'm curious other security conventions will take the same stance.…

I'm extremely impressed with DarkTangent, this must have been a difficult move for him to make, especially given that the NSA Director(DernZa) was the keynote speaker at the last defcon. He is probably getting a mountain range of shit right now from the feds. " Over the past two decades, hackers at Defcon and the feds have been circling each other suspiciously. The nation's top "spook" -- National Security Agency Dir…

>He is probably getting a mountain range of shit right now from the feds.

I doubt it. It's just PR. Defcon will invite the feds back once everything blows over, PRISM or not.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#84

Post by codyb »

sillysaurus wrote: post #54
bobert92 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally, with like paintball guns or some other form of humiliation.

Wouldn't that be assaulting a federal agent?

If they're off duty and in plain clothes shouldn't it be a civilian assault? Although, since the intent is to paint a federal agent I suppose you'd have a case.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#85

Post by foobarbazqux »

mcantelon wrote: post #81
res0nat0r wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

James Bamford pointed out in The Shadow Factory (back in 2008), that much of the "surveillance-industrial complex" is outsourced and that much of this bleeding edge tech is in fact coming from private companies (Narus, companies originating from Israel, etc). Should DEFCON setup a review board to ban employees from private companies they also don't agree with?

Why not? Contributing to the knowledge of companies such at Narus is detrimental to the good of humanity.

When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity?

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#86

Post by jmharvey »

richo wrote: post #42
beefman wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may affect their ability to recruit.

Honestly, I doubt it. They had a legit enigma machine last year. It was cool. Their booth was busy because of it. That said, I doubt anyone interested in working for the NSA would be put off by this/the recent leaks, or that anyone who didn't want to work for the NSA was going to change their mind at DEF CON.

People care about what their peers think of them. Even if a recruit don't have a problem with what the NSA does, the job is significantly less "cool" today than it was not that long ago.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#87

Post by contingencies »

anonymous wrote: post #76
dfc wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand your position with DHS. But CANN is hardly the man. Would you prefer a world where ICANN is unable to find competent security people because working for ICANN is some how associated with evil?

Supporting ICANN is hardly working in the name of "good". Sure, working with ICANN may not be associated with "evil". However to those in the know, it is associated with greed under the guise of "service to the public". Personally, I'd prefer a world where ICANN, namely the centralization and commercialization of domain names to benefit a select few insiders and an array of parasitic sleazebags, gave way to a non-ant…

However to those in the know, it is associated with greed under the guise of "service to the public".

Don't forget a US-centric internet, far more readily controlled and manipulated by that state than any other.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#88

Post by mcantelon »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #85
mcantelon wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Contributing to the knowledge of companies such at Narus is detrimental to the good of humanity.

When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity?

If one doesn't want to be besmirched by the dealings of an employer that profits from supplying mass surveillance tech then one should work elsewhere.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#89

Post by kingkilr »

mcantelon wrote: post #88
foobarbazqux wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity?

If one doesn't want to be besmirched by the dealings of an employer that profits from supplying mass surveillance tech then one should work elsewhere.

How are you defining things that are to the detriment of humanity? Which ethical system are you making judgements like that on? Does the scale of things that are bad for humanity come into play?

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#90

Post by foobarbazqux »

mcantelon wrote: post #88
foobarbazqux wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity?

If one doesn't want to be besmirched by the dealings of an employer that profits from supplying mass surveillance tech then one should work elsewhere.

So discrimination against employees is okay if you don't like the employer?
Post reply on HN