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

91–100 of 260 posts

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#91

Post by alwaysdoit »

mcantelon wrote: post #75
david_shaw wrote: post #49

This is going to be my tenth (?!) year at DEF CON. The culture of DEF CON, and especially its evolution, is a very interesting one. When I first attended DEF CON, it was a bunch of seemingly scary hackers. Fortunately, it turns out most of them were amazing people. As the conference grew (and changed venues several times), the culture began to evolve. The barrier to entry--in terms of being "accepted" into the subcul…

>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.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some people working in government that are not interested in undermining privacy and feeding the surveillance-industrial complex?

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#92

Post by RyanZAG »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #90
mcantelon wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Certainly, yes. Is it not ok to discriminate against someone who has joined a terrorist group and is actively helping them? Is an army medic not rightly discriminated against by the other side if the medic's side loses the war?

Discrimination is bad when it's about 'who someone is', never when it's about 'what someone does'. Providing work and support in exchange for money is very much 'what someone does'.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#93

Post by mcantelon »

kingkilr wrote: post #89
mcantelon wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you want to make a case for an "ethical system" in which mass surveillance is good for humanity be my guest (and PM me your email login credentials while you're at it: I promise not to use them irresponsibly).

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#94

Post by foobarbazqux »

RyanZAG wrote: post #92
foobarbazqux wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So discrimination against employees is okay if you don't like the employer?

Certainly, yes. Is it not ok to discriminate against someone who has joined a terrorist group and is actively helping them? Is an army medic not rightly discriminated against by the other side if the medic's side loses the war? Discrimination is bad when it's about 'who someone is', never when it's about 'what someone does'. Providing work and support in exchange for money is very much 'what someone does'.

So from your two examples, discrimination on the basis of one's employer is okay if the employer is not recognized as legitimate by the state, taxes are not remitted, etc.

How do you decide if it's okay or not to discriminate against employees when the employer in question is legal? You say it's never bad. How do you know that?

Is it okay for the IRS to discriminate on the basis of one's employer? What about other arms of the government?

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#95

Post by throwawayDC21 »

msandford wrote: post #70
grogenaut wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They get sub $5 gas. That's what the money is being spent on.

The average car is driven say 10k miles per year. At 20mpg that's 500 gallons of gas. At $4 per gallon, it's $2k. At $8 per gallon, that's $4k. A difference of only $2k. I'm not sure that the money on wars is well spent (even in a callous, dollars only sense) if it's saving the average household $4k a year in gas money (two cars).

The pump is not the only place that you pay for gas.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#96

Post by throwawayDC21 »

X-Istence wrote: post #64
merlincorey wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just confirmed on IRC, Defcon is cancelled.

Just got this confirmed through an anonymous source at DEF CON, it has indeed been canceled. With feds no longer being welcome there simply would not be enough money made from ticket sales to pay the costs for the venue.

Come on guys, you know we don't cancel DEF CON until the badge line reaches 200 people.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#98

Post by mcantelon »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #94
RyanZAG wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, yes. Is it not ok to discriminate against someone who has joined a terrorist group and is actively helping them? Is an army medic not rightly discriminated against by the other side if the medic's side loses the war? Discrimination is bad when it's about 'who someone is', never when it's about 'what someone does'. Providing work and support in exchange for money is very much 'what someone does'.

So from your two examples, discrimination on the basis of one's employer is okay if the employer is not recognized as legitimate by the state, taxes are not remitted, etc. How do you decide if it's okay or not to discriminate against employees when the employer in question is legal? You say it's never bad. How do you know that? Is it okay for the IRS to discriminate on the basis of one's employer? What about other ar…

>How do you decide if it's okay or not to discriminate against employees when the employer in question is legal?

What is legal and what is ethical are not necessarily the same thing, hence laws changing to make slavery illegal, etc. Ethical considerations often result in the changing of laws.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#99

Post by foobarbazqux »

mcantelon wrote: post #98
foobarbazqux wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So from your two examples, discrimination on the basis of one's employer is okay if the employer is not recognized as legitimate by the state, taxes are not remitted, etc. How do you decide if it's okay or not to discriminate against employees when the employer in question is legal? You say it's never bad. How do you know that? Is it okay for the IRS to discriminate on the basis of one's employer? What about other ar…

>How do you decide if it's okay or not to discriminate against employees when the employer in question is legal? What is legal and what is ethical are not necessarily the same thing, hence laws changing to make slavery illegal, etc. Ethical considerations often result in the changing of laws.

So ethical things can be illegal, unethical things can be legal.

Would discrimination against the employees of a legal employer in one's own state (country) ever be unethical?

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#100

Post by IanCal »

mcantelon wrote: post #75
david_shaw wrote: post #49

This is going to be my tenth (?!) year at DEF CON. The culture of DEF CON, and especially its evolution, is a very interesting one. When I first attended DEF CON, it was a bunch of seemingly scary hackers. Fortunately, it turns out most of them were amazing people. As the conference grew (and changed venues several times), the culture began to evolve. The barrier to entry--in terms of being "accepted" into the subcul…

>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.

So you're saying we shouldn't have open source? Shouldn't publish information from conferences?
Post reply on HN