Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year
blog.secureideas.com
blog.secureideas.com
A statement such as "We believe the exclusion of the "feds" this year does the exact opposite at a critical time." is just ridiculous. Even more bizarre is the idea of mentioning openness in the (current) government context.
If there is a positive effect between the openness of the hacker community and the Feds then why did we end up with the current situation?
The current situation is incredibly bad so I absolutely support the decision by DEF CON. Even if there is only one single occasion where people stop talking/avoiding a person who is working to close with government agencies this is a success.
People who work for these agencies will always hide behind some "greater good" narrative and avoid taking personal responsibility. My hope is that by getting personally shunned by their former peer group it might help them realize that this is not longer just business-as-usual.
Government loves to really up the public with the us vs them rhetoric so they definitely deserve a dose of their own medicine.
That sounds like it would increase the us-vs-them rhetoric, not decrease it.
And guess what, there is nothing wrong with this. It doesn't produce bad habits or bad intentions, because this is totally dependant on the persons character.
Certain positions invite certain characters.
>It doesn't produce bad habits or bad intentions, because this is totally dependant on the persons character.
Science:
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.
I guarantee you that this is not something the Feds themselves believe.
What makes you think it is true?
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.
Or, could also be because governments normally pay lots and lots of people for holding opinion, while normally there is nobody paying for the opposite side.
BUT... looking at it from the "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" perspective, I'm not sure this is a Good Thing. The feds are going to do what they're going to do, regardless of what DEF CON does. Might as well invite them in, pick their brains, and learn as much as possible to help counter their shady machinations.
With that in mind, it's kind of counterintuitive to close the door to conversation when silence was the issue in the first place. It almost seems like a melodramatic romance ("I just need to be alone right now."), which portrays the DEF CON organizers as reactionary and immature.
I also think it creates unnecessary hostility when you disinvite a group of people that everyone seems to know will attend anyway. In fact, it just creates more secrecy.
What will put a stop to this is a Presidential Order, but that's not going to be forthcoming under any administration.
Ordinary Citizens have always been the driving force behind every major change in this country. Talk to everyone you can about this and for Christ's sake try a little positivity!
Sooo cute.
(para 1) Clapper’s statement prompted some lawmakers to allege what Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) called a “double standard” in which a top official could deliver false testimony without fear of penalty.
(para 2) “If the administration has a policy to lie to Congress about classified materials in unclassified hearings, then you have to ask yourself what value the hearings have and whether or not anyone else is doing it,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.).
(para 3) Some are calling for a major overhaul of the current oversight system, including the intelligence committees and the surveillance court, which were created in the late 1970s amid growing concern about U.S. spy practices following Watergate, the Vietnam War and revelations about CIA efforts to overthrow foreign governments.
(para 4) Congress “tried to make agencies which have to operate in secret accountable nevertheless to the law,” said former vice president Walter F. Mondale, who as a senator was a member of the Church Committee, which led the efforts to overhaul the system.
(para 5) Now, Mondale said, “that system has totally collapsed.” He said Clapper’s willingness to mislead the public during Senate testimony “is what happens when there’s no accountability. . . . What is the consequence of fibbing to the American people?”
This seems to indicate to me that some congressmen are indeed interested in changing things around.
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 reform beyond what those two said. Indeed, most of you probably know their names only because of their faint opposition. They've been speaking as much as they dare for years, which means the rest of the committee has known for years. And yet, nothing.
That said, this serves to highlight both DEF-CON's dissatisfaction with the military/IC as well as that of the general population that attends.
It's a political statement. It won't actually change who attends.
This is a good thing.
Yes, most of us have known for years the extent of the spying the NSA/USG does -- and I believe it's time to take back some individual sovereignty -- the NSA has all but dissolved this.
For me, this is not a political issue, its a human rights issue. I have no respect for the NSA and its apologists, period.
Do you lack respect for those people, or their arguments?
This needs to be personal - especially because we are not talking about some exploited minimal wage earners who have no other options.
But instead about professionals who have made the intentional choice to dedicate 8h+ a day to organizations that set out to destroy privacy and private communication across the world.
THe NSA in specific and the intelligence community in general clearly believes that the information about, opinions of and actions by equate to "a person" -- if they did not, they would not be surveilling what they are.
Your question of whether I respect the "people" or their "arguments", appears to me, to be loaded.
It's as if you're attempting to determine if I make a distinction between the people in the positions of NSA staff vs. the actions they take as a willing person under employ.
I respect people: human beings. As a human being I see myself as a part of a singular species on a, thus far, singular planet in our universe. I am not an enemy of humanity - I am an advocate of it. The opinions arguments and actions of planetary governments though appear to actually be at odds with humanity and its longevity.
So, on the one hand we have an agencies actions which distill a person to their digital DNA; analyses, evaluates and judges it coming to a conclusion in whole as to what that person "is" and a schism in our culture that you appear to be attempting to exploit: your question is attempting to play to my "humanity" with these being people who are just making decisions and arguments in line with the "orders and directives" of an institutional body such as the NSA/USG.
Let me be very clear; I don't care who anyone works for, if you are attempting to control, oppress, exploit or succeed at the expense of people as a whole - you are an enemy to humanity.
You could be an individual, a group, a corporation or a government. I stand for both my individual sovereignty and the collective well being of my species and civilization.
This is what sets us apart from the insects; we are capable of thriving as collective individuals as opposed to hive-minded slaves.
How about the janitor who sweeps the bathroom floor at the NSA? Is he or she an enemy of humanity?
Hopefully you would conclude otherwise for both, but now you run into the situation where you have to judge individual actions and not just collective membership when assessing who is, or is not, an enemy of humanity. Note that I haven't even had to try to stick up for those 'just following orders'.
By all means, judge people on what they do; judge ideas on their own merits; that's all I've ever asked for myself. Just remember that sometimes good work may come from organizations that you consider evil. Imagine how we would have thought of the infamous Nazi Oskar Schindler, before we knew the real story of his factory.
Likewise, good people may have bad ideas, and those with good ideas are not necessarily good people trying to lead you to a good goal.
Your question about the "janitor" is ridiculous. While he's the lowest on the pawn totem, I am specifically talking a out those who know that they have created the systems designed to spy on every man woman and child on the planet.
If you cannot separate these people from those in a janitorial position, then you're clearly attempting to sideline the discussion.
Well all I ask is that you keep that in mind next time you decry someone for working at NSA, or FBI, or any of a number of other agencies, unless you actually know what they've done.
People are all too willing to offload rational thought to the simple act of labeling. The Bush-style logic of "You're either with us or against us" was wrong when talking about terrorism, and it's still wrong when you're talking about the NSA, or even government in general.
Let people be evaluated for what they actually do, not merely for where they showed up for work. In case you're wondering, this does mean that I don't support excluding Feds from a conference just because they're Feds, arrest powers or otherwise... though you could ask the agency not to send their employees on official duty since we oppose the agency's actions itself.
I would agree with this much more if they had previously had a statement suggesting that feds from oppressive foreign regimes were not invited. As a non-US citizen, there is a sentiment of "it was OK when we thought they were just doing it to foreigners" about much of this debate.
However, this isn't about standing up to anyone, it's a PR move by DEF CON.
It's worthwhile to note that people have often stated that the Constitution is not a "suicide pact". We are free (as a people) do what needs to be done to preserve our union. Whatever your political persuasion, it cannot be denied that bad actors are trying to coordinate and plan attacks against "soft" targets inside the United States and abroad. This is not a theoretical problem. It's real.
What is extremely unsavory about this entire affair is that the entire citizenry has somehow become a suspect. Every snippet of our communiques, interests, and associations is now considered "fair game". This has been done without ANY meaningful discussion in the public sphere. We, as a people, have been misled and our desire to understand what our government has been doing has been ignored. This is wrong.
I don't agree with Snowden's actions. I think he handled it the wrong way if what he wanted was to bring attention to this state of affairs. There are many who feel like he might have done this for personal glory or with traitorous intent. I'm not convinced one way or another, but I'm not happy with how this has unfolded.
I'm glad that there are enough people paying attention to this devils bargain we've made in the pursuit of security and I hope we get some resolution before things go back to the status quo.
We need to have a national conversation about this. The sooner the better. If there is a silver lining in Snowden's actions, I hope this is it.
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 simply don't see how it poses any existential threat to the union at all.
It's important to put things into perspective by understanding the threats we have faced in the past, and all that has been sacrificed to bring us the freedom we have now, so that we don't throw it away due to overreacting.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
It's more interesting in the context of Lincoln's suspension of Habeus corpus in the Civil War than as an unpopular dissenting opinion in a free speech case, though.
I have been working in the information security industry for just shy of a decade and while I have been openly accepted to attend/participate/speak at events, I have always felt that it is a US-centric industry. I had assumed that this is because of the huge amount of government money invested in to corporations and individuals that make up the community.
One of the things that I love about DEF CON is that it is big enough to make it truly international, when teamed with Black Hat it makes that week in Vegas unmissable. This stance on feds, by many people who I would call friends, gives the impression that they were happy to work/contract for the US gov while they knew they were targeting foreigners but not citizens.
There's no comparison between some "lone hacker" and our own government entities.
The idea that we should accept what the NSA et al have been doing in our name simply because it might be the next logical step is preposterous!
The next logical step is extermination camps, and the parallels between our current IC & that of Nazi Germany are too numerous to ignore.
That our government wastes so much on these spy programs while simultaneously neglecting our own people is unforgivable.
Hypocrisy has no place in our government, but that's exactly what we have now.
Bullshit, that's exactly what it is.
What a stellar synergy of marketing and management!
You missed the point completely, your post is a contradiction and way off base.
P1) This is a place for those who believe in openness, sharing, and mutual gain.
P2) Feds have been hiding the fact that they've been screwing us all along.
Conclusion: This isn't a place for Feds.
The blog posts states: "...but rather a continuation of openness that this event has always encouraged." But this is exactly why the Feds aren't allowed.
I think you meant 'legal' but you accidentally wrote 'possible' instead. Mesh nets and polymorphic encryption don't stand a chance against a supoena and the threat of a lengthy imprisonment/huge fine for noncompliance.
In my experience, vendors leech off the community more than the feds do.
Besides, DEFCON's statement was symbolic. If the NSA is watching us constantly anyway, they're going to be hacking us and us hacking them even if we and/or they are not at the conference.
Wouldn't you want to hold a conference like this in a place where all surveillance equipment were not standard so you can spot them as anomalies in the surroundings?
I would imagine that every single person that has attended is on the list of people whose communications are stored indefinitely.
I would imagine that any foreign black hat would have reservations about going to DEFCON.
In fact, the DEFCON community probably benefits from diversifying globally by being held in other countries.
I don't know anything about DEFCON, but how diversified is the audience that attends? Historically, have the overwhelming majority of non-fed attendees been US citizens? I would imagine that both Germany and Israel are well represented in the community.
If so, how do they attend without risking being put on a no-entry list at the border?
There's this thing called sequestration going on that's disrupting the budgets of all the federal agencies.
The feds are cutting budget for ridiculous things like the blue angels.
But they're totally going to be maintaining the budget for hacker cons in Las Vegas.
This is all about street cred for defcon & nothing to do with "taking a break." Jeff Moss is too sophisticated to be throwing away all those relationships. This is a stunt circle jerk.
I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of banning people for bad behavior, but DEF CON should spell out a concrete policy, apply it to everyone, and be specific about the offending actions.