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

COMSEC: Beyond Encryption [pdf]

grugq.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: COMSEC: Beyond Encryption [pdf]

#41

Post by rosser »

exarch wrote: post #34
asapragusnuts wrote: post #5

FWIW this is the talk that got them (Ben Nagy and The Grugq) thrown out of Kiwicon ( http://kiwicon.org/ ) for being transphobic, sexist and otherwise disrespectful to women and trans people. See http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Kiwicon_2014_expulsion IMO it was justified, but guess you had to be there.

>FWIW this is the talk that got them (Ben Nagy and The Grugq) thrown out of Kiwicon See, fuck this. We are all fucked if style begins to trump substance in infosec, like it has in most everything else. Fucking marketing turds. The Grugq is dropping pearls before swine.

If you need to say rude things in order to convey your message, you might take a moment to consider whether or not your message is actually worth conveying.

Re: COMSEC: Beyond Encryption [pdf]

#42

Post by Dylan16807 »

woah wrote: post #36
woah wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A transgender Mongolian in the desert"? Is this really so gravely offensive?

I asked a friend and she gave me this explanation: "It's not compassionate to remind transgender people that they're a minority that often has trouble "passing" and face extreme violence bc of that...if you were a trans woman in the audience who'd been beat up for not being able to pass as cis, how would it make you feel to have that treated like a joke" Seems reasonable. I retract my previous comment.

It does seem reasonable, but does that mean it's not okay to joke about unfair bad things in general? What makes a similar argument valid/invalid?

Re: COMSEC: Beyond Encryption [pdf]

#43

Post by rosser »

exarch wrote: post #35
woah wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A transgender Mongolian in the desert"? Is this really so gravely offensive?

It is if you're an overly sensitive SJW twat. Otherwise, no. It isn't insulting to desert-dwelling transgendered Mongolians, just a humorous ad lib pulled from the speaker's memory based on something they happened to have read recently.

You'll pardon me if I reject any argument premised on a notion of someone being an "overly sensitive SJW twat".

Comments like that say more about the person uttering them than their arguments.

Re: COMSEC: Beyond Encryption [pdf]

#44

Post by pakled_engineer »

MichaelGG wrote: post #25
pakled_engineer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police/interrogators want you to lie to them with a cover story so your alibi can be picked a part easily, correct response is to say nothing and get a lawyer. Even worse is admitting something illegal to them thinking they will just let it slide, more likely they will use your confession as cause to search your property.

Yes if you can avoid saying anything, fine. In the case of the bomb threat kid, there is no way to verify an alibi of "I was looking for drugs using Tor". And, a nervous seeming kid finally admitting he was looking for drugs fits pretty well and may have gotten the investigators to move on. They've limited time and resources. At other places, like border crossings, you might not have the ability to refuse to say anyt…

He was a bomb threat suspect so of course they would charge him with any petty crime he admitted to so they would get the excuse to further search his dorm, confiscate his laptop to get physical evidence of the bomb threat and detain him for further questioning. If he had said nothing and asked for a lawyer he'd still be in school.

This law professor explains why you should never talk to police, even if innocent http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc

Re: COMSEC: Beyond Encryption [pdf]

#45

Post by scintill76 »

makomk wrote: post #33
scintill76 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, "ad-lib" -- given that slide, what did they plan to say? Anyway, it's interesting to me that the pics of mostly-naked men and ASCII Goatse hardly get mentioned, overshadowed by a verbal remark. Maybe the con has changed its policy in response, but did they preview the slide deck?

Apparently they got in trouble for the ASCII Goatse too.

Yeah, if "got in trouble" == "it was mentioned in a few tweets", but mostly it seems focused on the trans remark. They quite literally assault the eyes of everyone in the room, and it only gets passing mention compared to a non-targeted[0], verbal insult to a certain class of people. Should the severity of an offense really be proportional to the oppression its victims are suffering?

[0] I mean they didn't point to a trans person in the room and say, "You're sticking out!"

Re: COMSEC: Beyond Encryption [pdf]

#46

Post by MichaelGG »

pakled_engineer wrote: post #44
MichaelGG wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes if you can avoid saying anything, fine. In the case of the bomb threat kid, there is no way to verify an alibi of "I was looking for drugs using Tor". And, a nervous seeming kid finally admitting he was looking for drugs fits pretty well and may have gotten the investigators to move on. They've limited time and resources. At other places, like border crossings, you might not have the ability to refuse to say anyt…

He was a bomb threat suspect so of course they would charge him with any petty crime he admitted to so they would get the excuse to further search his dorm, confiscate his laptop to get physical evidence of the bomb threat and detain him for further questioning. If he had said nothing and asked for a lawyer he'd still be in school. This law professor explains why you should never talk to police, even if innocent http…

So you're saying that, as a bomb threat suspect, they would not be able to convince a judge to give them a warrant for his laptop anyways?

Re: COMSEC: Beyond Encryption [pdf]

#47

Post by Estragon »

vesche wrote: post #4

This is cute, but it's also just a bunch of noise. Makes a lot of speculative claims without proof or citation. Reads like an overly verbose front page junk article of some non-existent cyberpunk gossip magazine.

I don't know why this was downvoted. A lot of this presentation is hard to take seriously for exactly the reasons vesche outlined, especially when the authors make howlers like praising Pond to the skies while the Pond author begs people not to make serious use of it.

Re: COMSEC: Beyond Encryption [pdf]

#48

Post by Estragon »

exarch wrote: post #34
asapragusnuts wrote: post #5

FWIW this is the talk that got them (Ben Nagy and The Grugq) thrown out of Kiwicon ( http://kiwicon.org/ ) for being transphobic, sexist and otherwise disrespectful to women and trans people. See http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Kiwicon_2014_expulsion IMO it was justified, but guess you had to be there.

>FWIW this is the talk that got them (Ben Nagy and The Grugq) thrown out of Kiwicon See, fuck this. We are all fucked if style begins to trump substance in infosec, like it has in most everything else. Fucking marketing turds. The Grugq is dropping pearls before swine.

I would say the talk itself is a triumph of style over substance.

Re: COMSEC: Beyond Encryption [pdf]

#49

Post by mfukar »

woah wrote: post #31
asapragusnuts wrote: post #5

FWIW this is the talk that got them (Ben Nagy and The Grugq) thrown out of Kiwicon ( http://kiwicon.org/ ) for being transphobic, sexist and otherwise disrespectful to women and trans people. See http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Kiwicon_2014_expulsion IMO it was justified, but guess you had to be there.

"A transgender Mongolian in the desert"? Is this really so gravely offensive?

Here is an interesting article: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-t... for those that wish to read a little bit more on the topic from an objective point of view.

Re: COMSEC: Beyond Encryption [pdf]

#50

Post by mfukar »

Estragon wrote: post #48
exarch wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>FWIW this is the talk that got them (Ben Nagy and The Grugq) thrown out of Kiwicon See, fuck this. We are all fucked if style begins to trump substance in infosec, like it has in most everything else. Fucking marketing turds. The Grugq is dropping pearls before swine.

I would say the talk itself is a triumph of style over substance.

How so?
Post reply on HN