191–200 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't that be assaulting a federal agent?
or just assault?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_ass...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I have heard exactly zero accusations that ICANN is doing anything to control or manipulate the Internet for the good of the U.S. None of the recent revelations about Prism, tapping cables, etc. have anything to do with ICANN.
But I agree that they're not "The Man" per se. Though I assume they're co-opted to the core.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's folklore wisdom that many of those people have to tell their friends and family that they work for the "GSA" doing PC networking or something like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing to mark them as feds, payments are in cash and everyone is in plain clothes. I think this will make very little difference to who attends. It is also worth mentioning that Black Hat (the two days preceding DEF CON) has reportedly seen a drop in registrations due to lack of funding for federal employees to attend (I have no source for this other than industry rumor). There was a suggestion that some w…
A good number of the Feds seem to enjoy self-identifying. Many will still attend, but the chemistry will definitely be different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
You had the choice of hacking for the good of people or you could join forces with 'The Man' and make a bunch of money. Maybe the choice isn't so binary, but nonetheless the choice is there. I could understand your statement, 'People need jobs to survive', if your profession was bricklayer, or shelf-stacker, but being a no doubt highly qualified individual in a booming field, as Snowden is, does not generally leave you scrambling to pay the rent and buy your groceries.
Earlier 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.
Actually, I'm not making that argument. This may be a subtle difference that is not important for this discussion, though.
My argument is that as a victim of the US government, it doesn't make sense to keep supporting the system that is victimizing me. All the work I do in my life will be approximately 1 step forward, 1 step back.
(Quite literally, as the tax rate is probably roughly around 50% in all, though I don't really mean it in that sense.)
Earlier 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…
As a European graduate this is what keeps me away from moving to the bay area. Maybe you also could consider moving to a country with less surveillance?