Comment by stfu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stfu | Hacker News Reader

Looks like somebody wants to nominate themselves for a government contract.

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.

> 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 things second but at DEF CON that's not the case and barring a certain group of people turns it into a situation where you're labelled based on what you don't have in common with other attendees rather than being welcomed because of what everyone at the even shares.

"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.

My problem is that The Feds are spying on me. If they want to be a part of the solution to that problem, great - they can stop.

May it be because those whistleblowers did something right, while the NSA did something wrong?

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.

> 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.

No pill can heal that wound. Imagine you're a Government worker with 15y of experience. You would automagically think about the public as "them". If you're an Admin or IT-Guy, you "already" do that, by separating you from the "Common User".

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.

> totally dependent on the persons character

Certain positions invite certain characters.

Belief:

>It doesn't produce bad habits or bad intentions, because this is totally dependant on the persons character.

Science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Reply on news.ycombinator.com