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

171–180 of 260 posts

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#171

Post by mpyne »

etherael wrote: post #169
PavlovsCat wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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", th…

Sure, there are degrees of contribution, and direct is clearly more intentioned than indirect, but at the end of the day the beast doesn't care if it's fed willingly or unwillingly, and the vast majority of government funding is involuntary. If it's going to die, it needs to be unable to feed, what people are willing to contribute is irrelevant when its primary income is violently coerced. I have thought long and har…

Have you thought long and hard about how you will avoid contributing to the corporations that also stand in the way of complete liberty? Or is it just the government you're afraid of?

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#172

Post by jff »

mhurron wrote: post #159
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…

>It's a booze-fueled learning, partying and networking event unlike any other Is there any way to get use out of it that doesn't include 'booze-fueled and partying'. I have no problem with booze, but I definitely dislike partying. Yes, I'm a wet blanket, but if the partying atmosphere is where the use comes from, I would seriously be uninterested. I know that actually does limit the networking part too.

I went to "theSummit" last year as a speaker. The speakers were all asked to wear blinky badges so people could find them and ask about their talks. Unfortunately, in proper party fashion, they had the DJ playing crap music so loudly that any real discussion was impossible. There was little of interest in there, really, so I took my leave pretty quickly.

I much prefer to hang at the bars on the casino floor and talk to whoever comes around. They let you smoke, the music is better and less deafening, and you'll meet more interesting people.

There's a big element at DEFCON of people who read way too many Neal Stephenson novels, got a utilikilt and a mohawk, and are roleplaying as haxxors. Escape that. Find interesting talks. Find feds, because they're getting paid to do security work and are often damn good at it. Don't feel like you have to go to every talk.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#173

Post by mpyne »

javert wrote: post #163
uxp wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life is not binary. Imagine you're in a room you can't get out of. By the nature of aerobic respiration, you're slowly transforming all the oxygen into carbon dioxide. Now imagine there is a running car in the room with you. Do you first shut off the car to prevent it from filling up the room with exhaust and carbon monoxide, or do you give up because there's no point in life? You can either give up by selling all yo…

> do something to stop the things that are taking away your freedoms and liberties, or at the very least, do something to make it harder for those that want to take away your freedoms to do so. Like what? (Last time I asked this question on HN I got about 5 answers that said "Call your Congressman," which I don't agree with.) I honestly don't believe there's anything I can do that would change things meaningfully, ev…

Well that's the problem, there's not much any one of us individually would be able to do. It has a be a mass movement to effect that type of change.

Even simply refusing to join these organizations doesn't help as much as you might think. NSA can teach smart people to program if it comes to that, so there's always someone to fill the seat. Only now, the person filling that seat has ethical norms even farther away from yours.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#174

Post by forgottenpass »

mirkules wrote: post #40

I'm skeptical. For the past few years that I've been attending, defcon felt at some times like an instrument for fed recruiting while paying lip service to its original "underground" feel. DT's message almost felt like posturing to underline the latter rather than a sincere statement to curtail the former. I won't pretend that I'm a long time attendee (my first was DC16), so I would love to hear from some more season…

I had written more here, but even after cutting down this post is still to long. Basically the evolution of DC is in large part a response to its own success. 13k attendees (IIRC) is going to change things, and any difference makes it easy to get disenchanted and/or nay-say. I don't think the attitude and execution have gotten worse overall, just different.

the reason for that impression is that there is no declaration of a policy in his message

Defcon knows they can't dictate everything that happens, only influence it. Feds are going to be there one way or another, thats why DT had an "invite the feds" attitude from the beginning. To hear some goons tell it, the "spot the fed" game was created as a social device to reduce animosity between attendees and law enforcement while also reminding everyone that strangers at the convention aren't your friends.

Even with enforcing hard and fast ideas (like the journalism boundary) they start off with a light touch. They gave the reporter many chances to stop snooping about and get a press badge. Before letting us into the convention center on day one red shirts were giving out warnings. That was days before she was publicly called out in one of the panels and marched out of the Riv.

As you say, we're not in third grade. But defcon does know it, and understand they can't keep people out a no-names cash-transaction event based on attendee employer. The most they can hope to do is say "Hey, maybe not so much this year?" Time will tell how it plays out, but the last thing I would call it is an attempt to save face or change the image of the event. I thought it was 100% DT playing a joke at first, and I still think its a joke now, just one with a message.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#175

Post by etherael »

mpyne wrote: post #171
etherael wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there are degrees of contribution, and direct is clearly more intentioned than indirect, but at the end of the day the beast doesn't care if it's fed willingly or unwillingly, and the vast majority of government funding is involuntary. If it's going to die, it needs to be unable to feed, what people are willing to contribute is irrelevant when its primary income is violently coerced. I have thought long and har…

Have you thought long and hard about how you will avoid contributing to the corporations that also stand in the way of complete liberty? Or is it just the government you're afraid of?

Yes, it was extremely complex and I consider myself quite ingenious for accomplishing this breathtaking feat of ingenuity, but here's the trick;

If you disapprove of anything about a business, it turns out that you can actually choose not to support them economically. When you make this choice they lack the ability to send thugs in costume around to kidnap/torture/murder you.

Further, if enough people in a free market agree with your evaluation of that business, it will actually stop existing rather than grow larger and larger fuelled by continuously increasing external security threats and various other negative externalities provoked by the kinds of things that aggravated you about it in the first place.

Fascinating stuff. These incentives for behaviour are responsible for some amazing feats throughout history, too. When you can't just kill people for refusing to support you, you often end up needing to provide actual value.

Not always mind you, some particularly unscrupulous businesses can become joined at the hip with the state and feed from the same larcenous trough, but at that stage it's hard to actually distinguish where they end and the state begins, thus your normal actions to avoid support to the state hit this particular shambling hybrid just as hard.

That's actually the difference between state and non state actors typically speaking, one you don't get to tell you're not interested in without risk of death. Mindblowingly complex stuff I know.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#176

Post by foobarbazqux »

mcantelon wrote: post #105
foobarbazqux wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>Would discrimination against the employees of a legal employer in one's own state (country) ever be unethical? Of course. Feel free to skip the leading questions and make whatever point you're working towards.

I'm trying to understand how your mind works, I'm not making a specific point or leading you in a certain direction. It doesn't help when you don't answer questions directly, it looks like you're trying to avoid answering them - this could have been less painful. For my part I could have been less obtuse and aggressive.

I believe that discriminating against someone on the basis of their legal employment is unethical and you don't, so I'm trying to determine when it's okay and when it's not okay.

What I've learned is that some people (including you) believe that sometimes it's okay to discriminate against people on the basis of their legal employment and sometimes it's not, and that it's up to whether the employment in question goes against your own personal ethical standards.

I'm not condemning this discrimination, only noting that it goes against my own personal ethics. People need jobs to survive, and even Snowden spent more of his life as a bad guy than as a hero. I'm fine with discriminating against work, but not against workers.

If you want to explore the issue in more depth, fine - maybe there are more nuances - but I understand if you're tired of it.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#177

Post by foobarbazqux »

dalke wrote: post #127
foobarbazqux wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, so I mean ethical / moral (is there a distinction?) and the 1980 case involving the Unruh act is a legal embodiment of my own ethics / morals. Thanks for the details, that was enlightening.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#178

Post by corywright »

DennisP wrote: post #146
sigzero wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am pretty sure it doesn't work that way. :)

Maybe if everyone signs a consent form at registration.

There is no registration at defcon, it's all anonymous. You hand them cash for a badge and a packet of info/stickers/cd and are on your way.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#179

Post by GigabyteCoin »

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?

Would you think it a wise idea to offer any form of training to an active member of the Nazi regime?
Post reply on HN