Smart move. Then people not feds has to come in order to prove they are not feds.
Feds, We Need Some Time Apart
121–130 of 260 posts
Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree with your argument. However, this seems to imply that all American hackers/entrepreneurs/etc.need to move to remote cabins in Montana and stop contributing to society, because anyone who contributes to society in America is directly supporting this system (albeit, 1 degree removed from those working directly for the government). I currently don't know a way around this problem, and I don't actually…
Not true at all. It entirely depends on what you're building. Build new tools to protect privacy. Advance encryption technology faster. Build new communication software to keep the NSA out. The list is practically infinite and applies to nearly every segment of web / internet / mobile / pc.
> Not true at all. It entirely depends on what you're building.
No it doesn't. He's making the same argument terrorists sometimes use to justify their actions. We're not innocent -- that by paying taxes, voting, and otherwise being a member of our society, we're culpable for what that society chooses to do.
You don't get to pick and choose what your taxes fund; in large part, that's the whole point of taxation.
Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the intention is to create a moat around the conference. Things have been getting quite cozy between these two [1]; I'm sure recent revelations don't play well with this conference's attendee base. [1] https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229756/NSA_chief_as...
A moat "this year" until it's safe for them, PR-wise, to work at legitimizing the feds again.
Perhaps this is why this bothers me: the Feds don't need any help from Defcon. If anything, it's the other way around.
Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart
#124Earlier 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?
When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity?
Employers are kinda made up of the people that work for them. Any attempts to disassociate the two shall fail.
So yes, humanity is better when people actually have experience consequences for their actions -- instead of hiding behind other people, or symbols even, like "employer".
We're not talking about being mean to people because of their skin color, or not selling them ice cream because they're working for the Mafia. We're talking not selling them weapons, and not letting them buy you drinks and whatnot, because they're working for the Mafia. That's exactly appropriate.
What's next, not "discriminating" against people because they are running marathons for the Rapists Association, even though they're not rapists themselves? Boo-hoo, really.
You're making a mockery out of the word "discrimination" here. You're equating withdrawing support from those who do harm with being mean to handicapped people and whatnot: Fuck that, utterly and completely.
Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart
#125Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true at all. It entirely depends on what you're building. Build new tools to protect privacy. Advance encryption technology faster. Build new communication software to keep the NSA out. The list is practically infinite and applies to nearly every segment of web / internet / mobile / pc.
> Not true at all. It entirely depends on what you're building. No it doesn't. He's making the same argument terrorists sometimes use to justify their actions. We're not innocent -- that by paying taxes, voting, and otherwise being a member of our society, we're culpable for what that society chooses to do. You don't get to pick and choose what your taxes fund; in large part, that's the whole point of taxation.
There's still a difference.
When I am in a room, I contribute to the humidity of that room. Now imagine me turning on the faucet or boiling some water.... and then saying "I can't turn them off, it would make no sense, I would contribute to the humidity either way!".
I'll just go ahead and say if people can't think at all, so that they only know the difference between "nothing exists" and "everything is the same", then whatever they're building can't be that good, and chances are great we'd be better of without it.
Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart
#127Earlier 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?
By "okay" do you mean "legal" or "ethical" or "moral"? In this case it looks to be completely legal.
Regarding federal law, discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, and a few other protected classes is illegal. Discrimination on the basis of other factors is generally acceptable, except where they collide with membership in the protected classes. (For example, a hacker conference cannot require that all participants have an uncovered head and demand observant Jews, Sikhs, etc. to take off their religious headgear, since there is no safety need for it.) Employment in a specific company is in general not a protected class.
Some states have additional restrictions on which discriminatory practices are not okay. In California, the Unruh Civil Rights Act says: “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
Most civil rights protections limit the prohibition to a list of discriminatory classes. The Unruh act is different because, quoting from the courts: “The Act expresses a state and national policy against discrimination on arbitrary grounds. Its provisions were intended as an active measure measure that would create and preserve a nondiscriminatory environment in California business establishments by ‘banishing’ or ‘eradicating’ arbitrary, invidious discrimination by such establishments.”
For example an ACLU lawyer was found to be in violation of the Unruh Act because in a 1980 California public meeting on police surveillance practices, where the police chief was invited but declined to come, one of the police officers attended in civilian clothes, and never announced that he was an officer. The ACLU believed he was an undercover agent, and kicked him out. The officer sued, and the courts found that that was arbitrary discrimination.
In any case, DefCon is in Nevada, which does not have a similar law. I don't know enough about California law to be able to say if this prohibition against Fed participation is arbitrary or not, were it to take place in California.
Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart
#128Earlier 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.
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?
Nice? Nice would be if "government" or "politician" was something every citizen did on the side and all the time, like breathing, instead of it being a profession. What you are suggesting is "slightly better than the worst", but nowhere near "nice" in my books.
Also, for what? So the rest can hide behind them? Because that's what effectively happens. Very little change, very great excuse. We couldn't even discuss police brutality here without some people moaning about how some cop or other is a decent person, as if generalizing to make a point is somehow worse than shooting unarmed people.
Not that I don't hear the point you're trying to make, I used to think that too, I don't anymore. When something is past the point of return, just throwing people at it won't turn it around, it just wastes perfectly good people. I'd rather lean on the assholes who currently work for assholes, to stop being assholes, than send non-assholes into that grinder.
Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not the NSA; defending mass surveillance by them is not incompatible with not trusting you with one's email account. Not that I defend mass government surveillance, I'm just tired of that pseudo-argument.
The NSA is made up on individuals like you or me and Edward Snowden has made the case that there's little preventing any insider from accessing what they want on whomever they want. As the surveillance state becomes an accepted part of modern society there will be those who seek involvement in it expressly for the purpose of abusing or exploiting their power.
They are individuals, yes (though they are certainly not random people), but they still operate within a structure that shapes their actions. For example, while I oppose it on philosophical grounds, I don't see an NSA operator exploiting my email credential for any personal purpose. But some random guy on HN - who knows? He might just post them on 4chan for the lulz.
It's simply a facile argument that weakens the real arguments against mass state surveillance.
Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whatever you thought about Ron Paul, his politics would have prevented all of this. All of the wars. All the foreign aid. And we would live in paradise ;) This made me laugh. Considering how much Republicans and Tea Partiers are ostracized for making cuts, just imagine how much people would come down on a fiscally conservative basically Libertarian candidate in 2016 (even if he runs as a Republican).
It's always amusing watching people talk about Ron and Rand Paul on the internet. Usually they haven't quite figured out that they're basically fake libertarians. Ducks
Libertarians != libertarians. The difference is that Libertarians are a party and libertarians like to party. :)
The Pauls are fiscally conservative which is only 1/2 of the Libertarian equation. The party stands for social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. Basically this just means less tax, more privatized government services, and to leave people alone if they aren't hurting each other.
Small-"l" libertarians are those that believe the liberty of the people is most important, even more important than any social or ethical constraints that have been placed upon them, but they believe that there can be a government that can enforce this, unlike anarchists.