There's little question there will be consequences to pushing back against the Feds, they're often vindictive bastards when you don't bow to their authority, but who can stand to live with actively helping to ensnare your fellow citizens in a police state?
Bullies get even worse ideas when they're not stood up to. The same goes for brownshirts, and anything in between.
As was brought up in the other thread, Dark Tangent himself can be considered a Fed, considering that he sits in the Homeland Security Advisory Council, as well as a top officer in ICANN.
Perhaps we'll be seeing Dark Tangent resigning his post as Homeland Security Advisory Council? Or perhaps there is more to "Feds" than you might think.
I think active rejection by your peers is a reasonable punishment for unconscionable activities in the community. And the reverse should be true for anyone who quits in disgust.
It won't fix the problem completely, but it will have an effect on recruitment and retention. Even if feds in the intelligence industry move to more reasonable IT fields within government, or take contracts as civilian pen testers.
A proper synonym for prejudice is bias. I like that word even better than prejudice in this case. It can be said that I'm absolutely biased about this subject.
Even if you believe the NSA's actions were wrong with regards to collection of metadata... a good portion of even the NSA's workforce have nothing to do with that current controversy.
Even then... if you manage to convince yourself to be a bigot towards ALL NSA employees, you'd have to be awfully bigoted to then further apply your judgement to the rest of the Federal Government workforce.
At some point, any participation in a system that allows such broad and systematic abuses needs to be called out.
yes, i know about godwin's law, thanks.
A brief history lesson: Office of Censorship, Atomic Bomb (historic Kyoto was on the list of places to utterly demolished... fortunately the Japanese surrendered before then), Napalm-based firebombings against a civilian population (Japan). Blatant racism in the form of the Japanese Internment camps, etc.
The existence of these programs are in direct contradiction to many principles that America stands for... especially the Office of Censorship. But we don't hold any ill-will towards our Grandfathers during that time. At worst, we recognize the specific faults in the specific laws in the context of the time period, and then write laws to ensure it never happens again.
Same thing will happen here. "Feds" in general were not related to this controversy. Showing ill-will to such a large group of people is straight up bigotry. We have the intelligence today to focus our energies on specific departments, specific people... specific regulations that have gone wrong in this case.
And that is what law is about. Figuring out the root of the problem and eradicating it. Painting entire groups of people (aka, "The Feds") with a single brush is wrong.
But what I think is that you're trying to describe a rational, sensible dislike for tyranny and police states as prejudice, which is disingenuous at best.
We're entering into a baby-with-the-bathwater situation here. Straight up defense is considered, by most, to be good. The interstate system (as a whole, some regions and sections, not so much) enables a great deal of commerce. These fall under the purview of the federal government, should we toss them out as well? Or should we have a more measured and less emotionally induced (panic and fear and hate) response?
Snowden did.
Everyone who didn't is culpable in the fascist enterprise (to varying degrees).
The feds who pout about stating the obvious, because they're oblivious to their colleagues, seriously need to shape up. I mean, how could you possibly catch robbers and thieves if you can't even look past your own nose?
Are you seriously saying the feelings of random good people who got caught with a bad crowd are worth a police state? There's people who became Neonazis just because they wanted friends, too. Does that mean I don't get to diss Neonazis in general? Nope. Because structures and systems matter more than the people who happen to work in them. The flypaper is the concern here, not the flies sticking to it: they don't get to "take it hostage", and you much less get to take it hostage on their behalf.
Entire departments, even inside of the NSA, have nothing to do with the current controversy. And it is important for them to stay up-to-date on the latest and greatest cyberattacks that go on in the country.
Your mindset is of bigotry and ignorance. You don't clearly don't know how the Federal Government is setup.
You ask that with a straight face? How much time do you have?
Entire departments, even inside of the NSA, have nothing to do with the current controversy.
Yes, and? Most people don't have AIDS, it's still recommended to use condoms when having sex with strangers. Since in this case there is no way to test them, it's better to be safe than sorry. Since that they're unable to be tested is by choice and design, it sucks for them. You can call that bigotry, I'm calling it putting the foot down. Collateral damage, if you will.
And hey, we're not talking about invading a country and killing a hundred thousand people in the pursuit of who-the-fuck-knows, but rather about people not being invited to a conference in the pursuit of we-know-exactly-what. This, my friend, is progress.
Entire departments, even inside of the NSA, have nothing to do with the current controversy. And it is important for them to stay up-to-date on the latest and greatest cyberattacks that go on in the country.
So maybe they can sign up to a newsletter or something? Or watch the lectures on youtube? What in God's name would require them to physically be there?
Every single last human being on the other hand, is at the wrong end of this gun. And we really really need that gun to be destroyed. To this end, symbolic actions are taken, as in this case (because I don't for a second believe this seriously would change or damage fuck all, to not get invited to a conference, but it certainly ought to make the conference a more enjoyable one), and people get to feel who they're associated with, and why that it matters. If one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, then that's real tragic, you know?
I mean, as long as we're talking needs, let's talk needs, instead of just dismissing the one side of the equation, and blowing the other out of proportion. They need to go to defcon or they can't do their job, huh. Poor people trying to "secure networks". Not against snoops, of course... or do you mean rather like securing middle east oil, huh?
Some are trying to end the bleeding away of life and money, to end the drying up of liberty -- and anyone who's not on board with that can take their pathetic priorities and play in traffic, as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather try to find someone better for their spouse and kids, than accept the need to "feed the family" as an excuse for any old thing. That stuff has played out once and for all.
And if they ARE concerned about the very same things, than why wouldn't they agree that it's worth a little inconvenience for them personally, to make a statement that kinda matters?
You don't clearly don't know how the Federal Government is setup.
Yup, I clearly don't not know that indeed. But even if I didn't know, there's something to be said for smart guesses, and not falling for those who play for time or act stupid.
Why does anyone go there physically by your standards? That is a dumb question.
To me that's a question about the physical world more than what people ought to be or do. It's a honest question, too. So if you or anyone can: tell me, I'm all ears. In absence of that, I'll just have to assume I refuted a silly statement with a perfectly valid question.
But you've already proven to me that you're willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. You are unable to see "Feds" as anything different than an homogenous collective beast, ala the Borg. You think they all think the same, you think they are all equal. You think they're all part of some collective conspiracy out to get you.
At which point, why should I bother debating with you? Arguing against bigots never produces results. At bare minimum, you need to prove to me that your brain can handle the fact that not every person inside of an ill-defined group is identical.
Why do federal infosec security members want to go to Defcon? The same reason as any other defensive infosec professional. To learn how to defend against the latest and greatest attacks. Whether or not they are "feds" doesn't change their mission.
Until you can understand this point, you're welcome to pretend that you've refuted my point. But I'll be blunt in my thoughts about you.