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

Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year

blog.secureideas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year

#81

Post by jivatmanx »

Nrsolis wrote: post #77
jivatmanx wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, as the civil war really was an existential threat to the union itself. Similarly, the cold war was clearly an existential threat to the union itself, the most obvious example being the hundreds of nuclear ICBM's in Cuba. Terrorism of the Boston Marathon sort is now an unfortunate reality, but is in no way comparable to these two events, and I s…

I'm sorry but I don't agree. Non-state terrorism is an evolving and emergent threat that's been amplified by the interconnected global world we live in. 9/11 spawned two wars and countless societal changes. The geopolitical landscape has changed and we would be foolish to ignore it.

This isn't the first time the U.S. has faced a non-state organized group with worldwide ambitions killing innocents as a political tactic, the late 19th century anarchists were identical in all of these respects.

Re: Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year

#82

Post by sanderjd »

Nrsolis wrote: post #77
jivatmanx wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, as the civil war really was an existential threat to the union itself. Similarly, the cold war was clearly an existential threat to the union itself, the most obvious example being the hundreds of nuclear ICBM's in Cuba. Terrorism of the Boston Marathon sort is now an unfortunate reality, but is in no way comparable to these two events, and I s…

I'm sorry but I don't agree. Non-state terrorism is an evolving and emergent threat that's been amplified by the interconnected global world we live in. 9/11 spawned two wars and countless societal changes. The geopolitical landscape has changed and we would be foolish to ignore it.

The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 didn't start two wars and introduce countless (bad) societal changes, we did those things in response to the terrorist attacks. The distinction is important. We made a choice.

Re: Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year

#83

Post by lifeguard »

chris_mahan wrote: post #35
rmrfrmrf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My major problem with the PRISM debacle was less that the NSA stores and analyzes Internet traffic (although it's perfectly reasonable to be upset about it) and more that they were doing it secretively (mixed with some disgust at how much money, energy, and time must be wasted storing and sifting through unfathomable amounts of data). With that in mind, it's kind of counterintuitive to close the door to conversation…

I think the NSA and friends are underestimating the amount of anger out there, and that the Congresscritters will probably try for a reduction of the NSA's budget to punish them for lying to them. The future of the organization might not be in jeopardy (although from the way congressmen seem peeved, it might) but there will definitely be cutbacks across the entire surveillance business.

I hope you are correct, but there is a lot of pork in there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel#Definition

Re: Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year

#84

Post by bandushrew »

bpatrianakos wrote: post #43
jgross206 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Looks like somebody wants to nominate themselves for a government contract. Interesting how when the news media baselessly questions the motives of whistleblowers it's a "smear campaign." When someone on HN does it to someone who's vaguely pro-NSA it's the top comment.

He's not even vaguely pro-NSA. He's pro-openness. The fact that this is the top comment is sad and its a testament to knee-jerk reactions in echo chambers around the world. There's a difference between the government as an entity and individuals who are employed by them. Feds attending DEF CON aren't really Feds, their security guys like everyone else there. Depending on the context one could be a fed first and other…

"Feds attending DEF CON aren't really Feds"

I guarantee you that this is not something the Feds themselves believe.

What makes you think it is true?

Re: Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year

#85

Post by Nrsolis »

sanderjd wrote: post #82
Nrsolis wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I don't agree. Non-state terrorism is an evolving and emergent threat that's been amplified by the interconnected global world we live in. 9/11 spawned two wars and countless societal changes. The geopolitical landscape has changed and we would be foolish to ignore it.

The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 didn't start two wars and introduce countless (bad) societal changes, we did those things in response to the terrorist attacks. The distinction is important. We made a choice.

Yes. We made a choice.

What I think you're ignoring is a prolonged, persistent, and increasing series of attacks against US persons and territories. 9/11 was just one of a series of attacks against us. Every previous attack was nearly ignored and forgotten here at home. I'm talking about the first World Trade Center bombing, the Cole Attack, and others.

And, honestly, it's easy for you to criticize. I lost three friends in the aftermath when our country went to war. This isn't an armchair argument for me.

I don't think it's fair to excuse the act of UBL and AQ only to denounce our response. I have little patience for pacifists.

Re: Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year

#86

Post by sanderjd »

Nrsolis wrote: post #85
sanderjd wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 didn't start two wars and introduce countless (bad) societal changes, we did those things in response to the terrorist attacks. The distinction is important. We made a choice.

Yes. We made a choice. What I think you're ignoring is a prolonged, persistent, and increasing series of attacks against US persons and territories. 9/11 was just one of a series of attacks against us. Every previous attack was nearly ignored and forgotten here at home. I'm talking about the first World Trade Center bombing, the Cole Attack, and others. And, honestly, it's easy for you to criticize. I lost three frie…

I am not a pacifist. I do not excuse the actions of the terrorists, I denounce them in the strongest possible terms. There can never be any justification for what they have done. But I have less standing to criticize their actions than to criticize those of my government. Part of my job as a citizen of this country to hold opinions on its behavior, and my opinion is that since 9/11 we have been largely fighting the wrong people, and that the fight has been expensive in cost and in civil liberties. I believe the cure has been worse than the disease, and that the severity of the disease has been, and continues to be, overstated.

You are, of course, right that it's easy to criticize from an armchair, but representative democracy is all about finding a balance between the opinions of the experts with the most skin in the game and the wider populace, of which I am a part. I don't need to be a direct participant in the struggle against terrorism to be entitled to an opinion on it.

I'm very sorry about your friends.

Re: Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year

#87

Post by bpatrianakos »

bandushrew wrote: post #84
bpatrianakos wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not even vaguely pro-NSA. He's pro-openness. The fact that this is the top comment is sad and its a testament to knee-jerk reactions in echo chambers around the world. There's a difference between the government as an entity and individuals who are employed by them. Feds attending DEF CON aren't really Feds, their security guys like everyone else there. Depending on the context one could be a fed first and other…

"Feds attending DEF CON aren't really Feds" I guarantee you that this is not something the Feds themselves believe. What makes you think it is true?

I'm talking about our identities here. I do some charity work on the board of a non profit. When I give talks and attend events with others in that particular field I am an advocate for a cause like everyone else there, not a developer. To take it even further I'll add some details.

The charity is involved with educating the public about the recent heroin epidemic that's been hitting the country pretty badly. Now lets suppose that NIDA or the DEA was involved with a scandal having to do with letting dealers off the hook or fudging some study. And lets suppose the prevention and treatment community, in response to this, announced that no Feds are allowed to attend our annual event (which is real) where we always invite speakers who work in the area of prevention, treatment, and law enforcement. That would not be the right thing to do. Those Feds who normally come to our events have a genuine concern for the cause and offer valuable insights. By not inviting them the organization may make a strong political statement but its really not doing anything except allowing a small group of people to pat themselves on the back and say "yeah, we showed them". Meanwhile all of our attendees and guests are missing out on valuable insights they may have otherwise gotten had the organization not taken this route.

There are betters ways of making political statements. DEF CON themselves could have tried to do something to address the NSA leaks issue at the event without barring a group of people who most likely don't even consider themselves as Feds when they're in the context of a security convention.

Re: Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year

#88

Post by a3n »

chris_mahan wrote: post #47
a3n wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Congresscritters will probably try for a reduction of the NSA's budget" Not if the leadership and seniors have anything to do with it. Boehner called Snowden a traitor; he doesn't want to be told what Snowden knows. And Feinstein has defended the programs. Wyden and Udall are in the minority. Everyone else on the Senate Intelligence Committee heard what those two heard, and there were no words of discontent or refor…

Congressmen have to be re-elected, and they have to show to their constituents that they have done _something_ to protect their privacy... There will be change.

Congress at large has the worst approval ratings in years, possibly ever. And yet we keep on mostly re-electing the individuals that make up the body, while in the same breath complaining about Congress.

Re: Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year

#89

Post by Nrsolis »

sanderjd wrote: post #86
Nrsolis wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. We made a choice. What I think you're ignoring is a prolonged, persistent, and increasing series of attacks against US persons and territories. 9/11 was just one of a series of attacks against us. Every previous attack was nearly ignored and forgotten here at home. I'm talking about the first World Trade Center bombing, the Cole Attack, and others. And, honestly, it's easy for you to criticize. I lost three frie…

I am not a pacifist. I do not excuse the actions of the terrorists, I denounce them in the strongest possible terms. There can never be any justification for what they have done. But I have less standing to criticize their actions than to criticize those of my government. Part of my job as a citizen of this country to hold opinions on its behavior, and my opinion is that since 9/11 we have been largely fighting the w…

"I believe the cure has been worse than the disease, and that the severity of the disease has been, and continues to be, overstated."

I don't agree with you. Specifically, the threat of radicalized Islam is real and present. Downplaying that threat when it was still confined to overseas military targets led directly to 9/11. We (the US) missed several opportunities to effectively neutralize UBL and AQ in the decade before 9/11.

Where I think you're going wrong is to dismiss or de-emphasize the complete shift of military power away from large nation-states towards small non-state actors. Terrorism is winning as a strategy.

If we do not find some way to stem this threat, the world is going to get a whole lot more unstable and unsafe for everyone. And I'm not talking about just the USA. I'm talking about most of Europe and Asia as well.

I know some people look at the Arab Spring as a promising development, but history shows that there is a high likelihood of further bloodshed and tyranny taking root where there is a power vacuum. (n/b Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt)

Re: Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year

#90

Post by sanderjd »

Nrsolis wrote: post #89
sanderjd wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a pacifist. I do not excuse the actions of the terrorists, I denounce them in the strongest possible terms. There can never be any justification for what they have done. But I have less standing to criticize their actions than to criticize those of my government. Part of my job as a citizen of this country to hold opinions on its behavior, and my opinion is that since 9/11 we have been largely fighting the w…

"I believe the cure has been worse than the disease, and that the severity of the disease has been, and continues to be, overstated." I don't agree with you. Specifically, the threat of radicalized Islam is real and present. Downplaying that threat when it was still confined to overseas military targets led directly to 9/11. We (the US) missed several opportunities to effectively neutralize UBL and AQ in the decade b…

I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, but I'd prefer you to disagree with my actual belief. I believe that the threat has been overstated, not that there is no threat. There is an extremely wide band between "no threat" and "such an enormous threat that our society must be fundamentally altered in order to meet it". The former would be a vast understatement, but I believe the latter is a (much less vast) overstatement. Of course I have no hard data to base any of these beliefs on, because any such data is secret, these are merely the conclusions I've drawn from what I'm allowed to know.

I completely agree with you that terrorism is winning as a strategy. The goal of terrorism is to make us afraid, and we are afraid. I do think it warrants a strategic realignment. I'm not against all new strategies, just the ones that appear to me to be illegal or outside what I believe to be the spirit of the law.

I totally get your argument though. It is a dangerous world. I think we are just willing to make different trade-offs in the mitigation of that danger.

Post reply on HN