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

151–160 of 260 posts

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#151

Post by walshemj »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #124
foobarbazqux wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bei…

Doubt any lawyer or court would agree with that "Employers made up of the people that work for them" - except possibly in the case of a coop.

In the US and the UK employment law descends from the masters and servants act - Note the term.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#152

Post by nknighthb »

sigzero wrote: post #139
nknighthb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defcon is not a government entity, it has freedom of association rights, and law enforcement officers are not a suspect classification.

It could probably be considered public though and therefore freedom of association wouldn't apply.

Freedom of association always applies, the only question is whether government can and has overridden it.

For "has", neither Congress nor Nevada has attempted to make discrimination based on employer illegal, in a place of public accommodation or otherwise. There can be no illegal discrimination when there is no relevant law, making the case moot from its inception.

And even if they had attempted such (that is, we move to the "can" analysis), we know from the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Hurley that it's difficult to do even where there is an entanglement of public and private interests, the harm to the private interests is extremely attenuated, and the excluded group is arguably quasi-suspect.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#153

Post by cheez »

asveikau wrote: post #144
bittired wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The Pauls are ... The Pauls are basically grandstanders. They'll adopt any pseudo-libertarian position that they think makes a good soundbite. They record will show that they haven't actually done much of legislative consequence. Anyone who takes them at face value based on the soundbites IMO needs to develop more of a sense of cynicism when assessing politics.

You are confusing popularity with effectiveness.

Ron Paul specifically had been talking for what, 20 years about auditing the federal reserve more than they were allowed. They finally got something through under someone else's name, but the victory was his.

The reason is that Ron Paul and his like cannot push through something on his own. The entrenched interests are way too powerful.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#154

Post by kGrange »

I don't think this is about "taking a stand." As has been pointed out, Dark Tangent is himself working for the Feds.

> recent revelations have made many in the community uncomfortable about this relationship.

They just don't want to deal with fed vs. non-fed tensions at the con. Maybe they're afraid fights would break out.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#155

Post by Shank »

It seems quite clear to me that Dark Tangent is attempting to stop something bad from happening at DEF CON. He doesn't want a fight or a brawl breaking out, or implied threats or negative community interaction. His advice isn't so much a 'no feds allowed' sign, but more of an open warning that coming as a Fed might cause undesired tension and circumstances that weren't previously present in such high volumes.

Calling the situation ironic because DT is a fed is unrelated - he may work for the government, but he isn't in a position that has a conflict of interest with a hacker conference (read: he doesn't work for the NSA). If you say "Dark Tangent" to a person in the security community, people recognize him as the creator of a hacker conference; not a government employee.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#157

Post by dclowd9901 »

icebraining wrote: post #115
mcantelon wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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.

> defending mass surveillance by them is not incompatible with not trusting you with one's email account.

How on earth can you make that argument? Ostensibly, by giving him the credentials you trust something to keep your privacy private. With the feds, you have no choice.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#158

Post by icebraining »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #157
icebraining wrote: post #115

Earlier 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.

> defending mass surveillance by them is not incompatible with not trusting you with one's email account. How on earth can you make that argument? Ostensibly, by giving him the credentials you trust something to keep your privacy private. With the feds, you have no choice.

I'm sorry, could you please rephrase that? I don't understand what you mean.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#159

Post by mhurron »

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.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#160

Post by asveikau »

cheez wrote: post #153
asveikau wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Pauls are ... The Pauls are basically grandstanders. They'll adopt any pseudo-libertarian position that they think makes a good soundbite. They record will show that they haven't actually done much of legislative consequence. Anyone who takes them at face value based on the soundbites IMO needs to develop more of a sense of cynicism when assessing politics.

You are confusing popularity with effectiveness. Ron Paul specifically had been talking for what, 20 years about auditing the federal reserve more than they were allowed. They finally got something through under someone else's name, but the victory was his. The reason is that Ron Paul and his like cannot push through something on his own. The entrenched interests are way too powerful.

> You are confusing popularity with effectiveness.

No, I am saying this ineffectiveness is motivated by lack of genuine interest. They're just opportunists, no better than any other.

His son is even more blatant about this, showing up at the last minute with tough questions when something is in the headlines, but not showing any signs of prior interest or following through. It gets him quoted in the news a lot, and a lot of support from people who aren't paying attention.

They are very willing to fall totally in line with the entrenched interests you mention. That they happen to be allowed token protest votes on stuff that won't be in serious danger is incidental.

That and... I guess being pro-life is a big libertarian position?

Post reply on HN