10 ms·

Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

70 points by pabo 6y ago

lawnchair_larry 6y ago
No, it isn’t.
- dang 6y ago
  The submitted title was "Is the title of the Black Hat conf offensive? Google sec. researcher withdraws", which broke the HN guidelines. Submitters: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
MintelIE 6y ago
Hehehe while SV is busy with their struggle session, the rest of the world is laughing. Xi and Vlad are proud of this cultural revolution.
- dang 6y ago
  Please stop posting dross to HN. Edit: since you've already ignored multiple requests to stop posting flamebait, I've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break the site guidelines with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- baal80spam 6y ago
  Honk honk!
pinkhatoperator 6y ago
These Red Guards 2.0 seriously need to chill out.
fennecfoxen 6y ago
It's offensive in the same way as Call of Duty: Black Ops is offensive, which is "generally not actually offensive". However, it is possible to derive professional advancement from claiming that it is, so expect to see more of this in tech. Also not offensive: Black Friday, black holes, black beans, black tea, black-eyed peas, black gold (aka oil), Black Mirror, black swans.
- foogazi 6y ago
  What about black beans and white rice: https://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/moors-and-christians-em-moros-y-cristianos-em-51203610 https://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/moors-and-chri...
  - Volundr 6y ago
    While I think some of the name changes going around the community at the moment aren't productive, it's not a good comparison. The black and white in black beans and white rice are accurate descriptions of their color. "Black" is not being used to signify that these are malicious beans, out to cause harm.
    - Brian_K_White 6y ago
      Neither is the malice of black hats associated in any tiniest way with anyone's skin color. The black==bad is a fundamental feature of all humans. Black people also fear the dark and not the sun.
- jointpdf 6y ago
  I’m not taking a stance on the issue, but this quote from the article illustrates how blacklist vs. whitelist is different than the examples you gave: > “Others pointed to the dualism between black and white as representing evil and good, concepts that have been around since the dawn of civilizations, long before racial divides even existed between humans.” The supporters of the current terminology use this to bolster their argument, but I believe it’s also at the core of the argument against the use of terms like blacklist/whitelist. The idea is that the black vs. white = evil vs. good (like, MTG card colors) can “spill over” into dark skin vs. light skin = evil vs. good. This is an interesting article related to this effect: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-bad-is-black-effect/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-bad-is-black-... Ok fine, I’ll take a weakly-held stance: this seems like a bit of a stretch, and distracts from the more serious ways in which systemic racism manifests itself. On the other hand, I see no need to become outraged—words fall out of favor all the time (go play with the Google n-grams viewer to see for yourself).
mindslight 6y ago
The inanity is best summed up in an image macro: https://imgur.com/gallery/QR1UXz1 https://imgur.com/gallery/QR1UXz1
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
"> Discussions about the topic started late last night after David Kleidermacher[1], VP of Engineering at Google, and in charge of Android Security and the Google Play Store, withdrew from a scheduled talk he was set to give in August at the Black Hat USA 2020 security conference." it's usually entitled white people who feel immediately offended by this. With entitled I mean, finished university working at a top position in a large company on a 6 figure salary. It's never the worker POC who is slaving away in an Amazon warehouse or working 3 jobs in the gig economy to feed their family. It's just a cheap way to get your name in the news and to me (personally) these people are very misguided. They're well read no doubt but nevertheless wrong. Guess it's easier as an exec at a multinational company to pander to this rather than tackling their transfer-pricing crimes they commit with their Double Irish / Dutch Sandwiches[2]. Banning language like this is a very dangerous path: “Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for commiting thought-crime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occcured to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?” -- George Orwell "1984" [1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/davekleidermacher/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/davekleidermacher/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_and_the_Men_Who_Stole_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_a...
- rbecker 6y ago
  > it's usually entitled white people who feel immediately offended by this Judging by the name, David Kleidermacher is Jewish. Edit: Flagged? But it was the parent post that brought up race, yet it remains unflagged. Why was that instance OK, but this isn't?
- tdeck 6y ago
hintymad 6y ago
It is offensive because the word "black" in the phrase has negative connotation, right? If so, the stance Google engineer took was not progressive enough. I suggest a purge with rigorous examination on at least the following phrases on top of my mind: black cat black money black sheep black frost black market black humor black plague black widow black monday black ops black hand black death black magic black propaganda black economy black book black prince black eye black marketeer blackmail Oh, and do remember to cancel this website: https://www.bourncreative.com/meaning-of-the-color-black/ https://www.bourncreative.com/meaning-of-the-color-black/, as well as all the discussion about the sensation of the black color. In a racist's eyes, everything is about racism.
- hintymad 6y ago
  And I don't understand the downvote. The Google justice fighter didn't ask to rename "black hat" because of negative connotation? If it is about negative connotation, why is it wrong to examine all phrases, especially the ones like "black market" and "black hand"?
  - prepend 6y ago
    It’s wrong because of bikeshedding and spends resources on unimportant things. Racism is important. Hacking is important. Spending cycles working in these areas is better than helping those who struggle with googling “is blackhat a racist term?” In this case the speaker shut off discussion anyway by not participating. So he’s not “examining all phrases,” he’s issuing judgement on a phrase. And his judgement seems silly to me. I don’t know the subject so perhaps his material is great, but based on this one action it seems unlikely that his judgement would be great on blackhat hacking, but ridiculous in this area.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
TACIXAT 6y ago
It is doing the opposite of what it appears to be doing here. Blackhat is incredibly prestigious, expensive, and largely corporate and government in attendance. If there really was some association to race (I do not think there is), this would be a positive example. What I would like to see all these people do, who are doing find and replace in repos, is to show up to local city council meetings. They should find out what changes would be most impactful for minorities in their city and fight for those. Changing 100 tech conference names will never negate the economic damage of them blocking housing development in the single family home neighborhoods that they live in around Mountain View.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
If someone sees the phrase "Black Hat" and immediately thinks of negative stereotypes about black people, I really feel like they're the one with unconscious bias that needs to be broken down.
abellerose 6y ago
I'm white so I can only postulate from other experiences where I can actually relate. I think the question of "black hat" may in fact be offensive is valid criticism of our culture using "black" to be on the opposite side of a spectrum compared to white; where humans think the white side is possibly noble while the black side deserves some form of contempt. I think it's a red herring to think about other combinations of words having "black" before the following word and where no negative feeling exists from it. Example: black swan Should people care? IDK
- tridentlead 6y ago
  My herring is deeply offended.
galvin 6y ago
It's clear that some of the language we use needed to be changed, the previously used terms for primary and secondary hard drives are an obvious example. It seems to me that the notions related to black and white have broader cultural associations though. Light and dark or day and night have long been associated with good and bad. White similarly has associations with good and innocence hence the use for wedding dresses. I'm not convinced that we can easily rid ourselves of these deep rooted notions.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  You're still giving the idea too much credit, I think. Black is just a color. The attitude that all black-colored things are intrinsically associated with black people is itself bizarre and problematic.
  - galvin 6y ago
    I agree with you. All colours have associations and there are more pressing issues that need to be dealt with.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    When people see a man wearing pink, they think of them as being gay or effeminate. Men wearing pink might be assaulted because of this association. Things are ultimately not 'just colors' because culture and society inform our reactions to color. That's one of the reasons why they want to avoid the connotations of black = evil because on some level that does tune our bias in a certain way.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I’m sorry, I really do want to try and understand, but I’m just completely lost on how to seriously engage with this argument.
      - fzeroracer 6y ago
        Per my previous comment then, how about 'yellow peril'? Color coding for racist elements has a long and storied history across the world. Nothing exists as simply just a color in many environments because the usage of color matters in context.
burlesona 6y ago
My understanding is that the terms “black hat” and “white hat” stem from Western movies where the villains and heroes would typically wear black and white hats, respectively. I’m not aware of a racial association, but perhaps I just don’t know about it?
- dogma1138 6y ago
  There isn’t and it is indeed comes from westerns, tho this predates what most people would consider the classical / spaghetti western era and has its origins in early black and white and silent films.
- dmtroyer 6y ago
  I think it is worthwhile to examine why westerns chose to use the symbolism of black and white hats.
  - cheesecracker 6y ago
    Christianity perhaps?
    - badrabbit 6y ago
      Perhaps? Is that your go to boogeyman?
      - cheesecracker 6y ago
        WTF? No, it just seems that they use white as symbol for purity and god - angels clad in white, brides in white dresses... My sincere apologies for growing up in a Christian culture, making me an evil colonialist by birth. How can I make amends? Boogeyman - we are talking about the colors black and white here. Get off your high horse!
        badrabbit 6y ago
        No,this is a universal concept. Night vs day, dark vs light. A strong light is associated with the color white, if you grew up in a Christian culture then you should know the Bible does speak a lot against judging people by appearances. I am not on a high horse, but you picked a belief out of nowhere as if it was particularly significant to the topic, so boogeyman seemed an appropriate characterization.
claudeganon 6y ago
Does this sudden upswell in irrelevant language policing not seem like some kind of coordinated op to discredit BLM? I don’t question that real people fall for it, but considering how wildly successful it’s been at distracting from material demands, like ending police violence, and how much the media has embraced these stories while ignoring ongoing protests, has me a little tinfoily...
- twic 6y ago
  Hey, please don't engage in hate speech against tin foil.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I think it's an inevitable consequence of the well-intentioned demands that everyone should take action. If you're a conscientious big company VP, with a strong belief that you should take action but no actual power to reform the police, doing something performative but splashy is the obvious choice.
- Delk 6y ago
  I'm looking at things from across the pond and then some, but I think it's some kind of a reaction -> counter-reaction -> counter-counter-reaction thing. I don't think it's meant to discredit BLM although it might end up doing that. <div class="wall-of-text"> Some people genuinely feel outsiders in a field, or might not see it as a real possibility because it feels foreign. Some parts of language and culture might actually maintain that, although (generally speaking) not due to malice by other people. Other parts just are, and don't actually do much of anything. Some people then want to change that feeling of outsideness, some more than others. Some of the people who personally feel the most strongly about it are the people coming from the backgrounds that aren't traditionally associated with tech. They're often also from ethnic minorities, or women. Some of those people feel extremely strongly about it. It gets tied to their other experiences with being at a disadvantage, or of blatant racism. Others (partially rightly) then want to support it. But some of those people who have experienced disadvantage are really, really angry, and want to attack everything that reminds them of the injustice they've experienced. And because some honestly unrelated things become mentally tied to that, they also become microaggressions, or something. (Microaggressions are probably a real thing, but if you start wanting to catch all of them, you'll also end up catching a lot of false positives. Specificity and sensitivity and all that.) Then there are people who actually either feel subconsciously threatened by others competing for the same positions, status and authority, or who are actually racists and feel other ethnic groups shouldn't get the same things they have. Those two groups of people aren't the same, although they probably intertwine. And it's actually quite human to feel the former in various degrees. Maybe even the latter, considering how common it is in the world, but it's easier to see that as nefarious. And then there are people who just don't like unnecessary change. And those who just don't like the feeling of someone else pushing a way of speaking, thinking or acting on them without really good reason. (I think a lot of HN readers fall into that latter category, as do many classical liberals. I certainly do.) A lot of people just fall into one social group and context out of the above, because humans are herd animals and having a group is massively important to the vast majority of us. All of that somehow leads to an unholy mess. Actual racists want to push their agenda and attack those whom they see as their political enemies; opposing any agenda that purports to be antiracist seems to play into the hands of racists; some people get caught in the middle because they don't want to support the racists but also don't like the idea that the language they're used to using needs to change, especially if it doesn't seem like a big thing; some of those not-a-big-things appear to be big things to other people, but who can tell who's really right; others get caught in the middle because they're a bit insecure of their own position and are thus disincentivized of advancing other people's positions, yet don't want to associate with the blatant racists either. Some get caught in the middle because they want things to make sense to them, and "we all need to get behind this because someone somewhere has the emotional need for that" doesn't cut it. Because there are 7 billion emotional needs, and that's if you only count humans. So the requirement of hypersensitivity (and even blatantly creating problems) makes many people who aren't even racist uncomfortable; the actual racists use this to their advantage, and overreaction by antiracists provides ample attack surface; and in the eyes of those who feel very strongly about antiracism opposing any of their views (including about microaggressions) become something to oppose. Meanwhile, some of the people in the middle actually have mildly racist views, or feel threatened, or just want to maintain more of a status quo because they're, by personality, somewhat conservative people who don't like rapid change. Or they dislike being pushed into something, or out of something (such as use of language). But because some of the people in the middle are actually supportive of mild racism, or uncomfortable of facing the reality of it, attacking the middle also becomes a valid argument. And because people don't like feeling like being attacked, some of the people in that middle then gravitate towards the right-wing end. Because the racists aren't attacking them; it seems like the strong antiracists are. You then end up with two polar opposites that reinforce themselves, and each other. And with some people caught in the middle who, for better or for worse reasons, don't really want to side with either. </div> Sorry if I got carried away. But I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I honestly don't think the people pushing for language policing in a hypersensitive manner are trying to discredit BLM, and I'm not really sure most of them are necessarily "virtue-signaling" either. Some of them are, but most of them are probably just reacting to something that they either personally find offensive (even though their actual enemy is the real racists, not (most of) those in the middle) or to something their in-group opposes. It's just a complex social dynamic, not a conspiracy.
mikenew 6y ago
Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress. It reminds me of that joke from The Office where Michael acts like the term "Mexican" is problematic. If there is a real problem here I am genuinely happy to hear about it and try to understand. I would love to see more diversity in computer science and I think the entire industry would benefit. But it sure feels like some rich white engineer taking advantage of a social movement to broadcast their own virtue.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress. It isn't (though recognizing that using the term “black” in ways which actually evoke racial stereotypes is), but both hostile provocateurs (deliberately) and people who don't understand the actual issue but want to try to appear supportive because they see social advantage (out of ignorance) act in ways which associate a more general rejection of the word “black” with what people genuinely concerned about social progress are trying to do.
- el_nahual 6y ago
  Without commenting on whether or not "black hat" is offensive, you're straw-manning the argument. The argument isn't that "black" is offensive, but rather that it's connotation with negative things is. To use your The Office example, it would be as if "bad" hackers were called "Mexican hat" hackers, forbidden lists "Mexican lists", etc. (Except not, because "Mexican" only means a kind of person, whereas "black" means many things, but that's the argument being made).
  - salawat 6y ago
    Boulderdash. There is not a damn thing offensive about a combination of <color><noun>. We use constructs like that all the time. Or are we going to start saying "red lights" are offensive? Or "yellow lights"? Around yellow proceed with caution! Red means Stop! Danger! How about "Dark rooms"? Should we avoid that? Change red-black trees to green purple? Or hell, lets rope the electrical engineers into it. How dare black be the color of the negative cable. What's white? Oh, ground? You mean where everything ends up going? Heavens, pull the wiring out! This moral panic reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis. >"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals." Truly, in these Times have the moral busybodies had their Jimmy's rustled.
wazoox 6y ago
Also "MITM" (man in the middle), "Whitelist" and "Blacklist", even "Sanity Check". This is all very aligned with a general trend of cheap moralization and virtue signalling that actually achieves nothing but makes as much noise as possible and poison every discussion with identity politics, by seeing prejudice and bigotry everywhere.
- throwaway25789 6y ago
  > actually achieves nothing It's worse than nothing. It sucks up oxygen that could be used elsewhere. Outrage/attention is a finite resource, and the more of it is blown on topics like this, the less is available to spend on things like income inequality, hiring biases, incarceration rates, police brutality, social programs, diversity/representation in media/politics, etc. At this moment in time the Black Lives Matter movement has precious momentum that must not be squandered. To put it bluntly: distractions like this are actively harmful, and become more harmful the more attention they receive. Focus is crucial.
  - mnm1 6y ago
    Absolutely. BLM asks to put a stop to police brutality/racism and stupid white people decide to change the phrase "grandfathered" or "you guys" in response. Or to put down entire languages like Spanish because they use gendered nouns. A more tone deaf response would be hard to achieve. Even those of us who have supported the cause against police brutality and racism for years are now losing interest and energy. If this is the outcome of the protests, they were indeed all for naught, just spreading corona so a bunch of idiots can feel better about themselves thinking they made a change in the world by censoring others' speech. How absurd.
    - josteink 6y ago
      > just spreading corona And causing riots, billions in property damages and innocent civilian lives lost (even before we’re considering the corona). At this point the BLM movement is a clear net negative for society.
hprotagonist 6y ago
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
- hintymad 6y ago
  This is a damn good summary.
  - hprotagonist 6y ago
    C.S. Lewis had Dolores Umbridge's number long before she was ever dreamt up.
motohagiography 6y ago
I'm sorry, this is bonkers. I have presented at more than one Blackhat conference and since then I have seen the hacker scene reduced to nothing but a farm team for surveillance companies, domestic spy agencies, and totalitarian movements in academia because they think merely being against-bad is sufficient to be good. Hacking was always about individual competence as a check on technological dominion and absolute political power. Today, it's something you do to get noticed by people who rent you out for dog and pony shows to sell surveillance technologies. Security is no longer about protecting innovation and enabling a perimeter for safe creativity and exploration, it is about inserting a governance layer over the competent and other technologists, to ensure their subordination to a layer of interchangeable compromised sycophants. The movement to change these things has nothing to do with the content of "blackhat/whitehat." It is only about whether the people militating for the change have the power to cow others into submission. It is a test of whether the we will submit to the histrionic bullying by people in this movement. This is the same mechanism as the myth of Kim Jong Il hitting 11 consecutive holes in one, which was patently ridiculous, but designed to identify people who still have enough individual identity to recognize and resist the dominating absurdity of the movement behind it, who can't help but out themselves, so that they may be targeted by the movement for liquidation. What's worse, is people like this researcher aren't insane, they are calculated and cynical. This entire playbook is described by Hannah Arendt in her essay "Ideology and Terror," which was appended to her book, "The Origins of Totalitarianism." If this makes me the first to stop clapping, so be it. The stakes are high enough that bearing the risk of being honest is a greater service to others than anything else I will likely achieve. Good riddance.
- neididipp 6y ago
  So humans are being humans. It’s vanity to think we’re encountering some yet unknown human experience here. It’s new to us individually, but the historical record is littered with exactly your account of “what’s happening.” Administrative state wraps itself around the rubes brainstems to moderate agency. Obviously it’s fine when it comes to real harm to others. The problem is when a successful person believes that success for them is guaranteed. As much of mainstream America, it’s ridiculous billionaire class has come to believe. We’ve given them a monopoly on capital, fools. Capital = options. We have none. We’re stupid and must simply enter into debt agreements to exist as a member of an elitists flock. Or at least that’s the sound forms they might have used when the church owned everything. Just because the central authority doesn’t “legally” own things doesn’t mean we haven’t ended up right back in the same spot of being controlled by a spiteful hierarchy of self-aggrandizing but otherwise normal men. Less literally violent spot, of course, but still destructive of innate biological rhythms. People used to go about their day building shit. Now they need to coddle grandpas agreements. Pretty ironic for a country with a founding principle of “fuck gramps and his bullshit agreements.” Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, the dead should not rule the living. But here we are being guilted into servicing their debts, their opinion on hierarchy, their old demands for wars over what really could have been mental illness back in the day. Somehow if it’s on paper it’s a force of reality, like gravity itself!
fzeroracer 6y ago
I'm not sure what the problem is. I've refactored methods and functions all the time to try and improve clarity. Removing words, changing meaning so that people who read it grok it. I don't have a problem with changing terms. But people take a hard-line ideological stance against it because they perceive change as being weak or a slippery slope or something.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  It is because of the actor really. Conceptually their strategy is "if they give an inch take a mile and keep on taking" while using every bit to beat them with it over every little petty issue. The way to shut them down is to tell them to take a hike from the start to deny any leverage. Reconsider if they have anything worthy of consideration. Part of effecfive communication is not looking like a bad actor with an approach.
DLA 6y ago
Instead of this cancel culture BS, maybe we dedicate more effort and outrage to real problems—-remember cancer, inequality, poverty, global warming, runaway national debt, defense issues, deforestation, plastic waste (and rain, apparently), clean water shortages, etc. Hey but let’s make sure we rename that default branch to main or remove specific keywords from code bases (none of which has anything to do with race). It’s fine. Those real problems can wait for some day.
mike503 6y ago
I’ve seen a lot of good examples of black being bad, but black also is a positive thing in many contexts. Amex Black card? Or other cards? A sign of prestige. Black limousines and towncars are seen as prestigious. Black clothes make you look thinner; plenty of women like to outfit themselves in black as much as possible. The gothic look primarily deals in black. Never seen or heard anyone try to link some sort of racial relation to it. It’s weird that “black <something>” is now being looked at so critically, especially since “black people” isn’t even a properly descriptive term, but one that may even have roots itself as the “white man’s N word” back in the day. However it seems to the acceptable phrase. I’m now going to see what the epidemiology of that is, I’m curious who came up with it.
- mike503 6y ago
  I should elaborate my point slightly. Even Wikipedia says this: “For many other individuals, communities and countries, "black" is perceived as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result is neither used nor defined, especially in African countries with little to no history of colonial racial segregation” [1] So to many (maybe not in US) it already is an offensive term. My thought would be why not move past the term of black people to something more universal with no historical questionability, and not get caught up in “is black <something>” offensive. Instead of having to fight and question a lot of black <something> due to its actual color, embrace a more transcendent new term (much like Indian vs Indigenous Person vs Native American, that movement) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people Edit for minor typo
heynow12 6y ago
The only thing offensive about this is the way white people are hijacking the narrative and making the actual point of what peope of color are actually asking for get lost in bullshit.

70 points by pabo 6y ago

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

No, it isn’t.

dang 6y ago
The submitted title was "Is the title of the Black Hat conf offensive? Google sec. researcher withdraws", which broke the HN guidelines. Submitters: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

MintelIE 6y ago

Hehehe while SV is busy with their struggle session, the rest of the world is laughing. Xi and Vlad are proud of this cultural revolution.

dang 6y ago
Please stop posting dross to HN. Edit: since you've already ignored multiple requests to stop posting flamebait, I've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break the site guidelines with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
baal80spam 6y ago
Honk honk!

pinkhatoperator 6y ago

These Red Guards 2.0 seriously need to chill out.

fennecfoxen 6y ago

It's offensive in the same way as Call of Duty: Black Ops is offensive, which is "generally not actually offensive". However, it is possible to derive professional advancement from claiming that it is, so expect to see more of this in tech. Also not offensive: Black Friday, black holes, black beans, black tea, black-eyed peas, black gold (aka oil), Black Mirror, black swans.

foogazi 6y ago
What about black beans and white rice: https://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/moors-and-christians-em-moros-y-cristianos-em-51203610 https://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/moors-and-chri...
- Volundr 6y ago
  While I think some of the name changes going around the community at the moment aren't productive, it's not a good comparison. The black and white in black beans and white rice are accurate descriptions of their color. "Black" is not being used to signify that these are malicious beans, out to cause harm.
  - Brian_K_White 6y ago
    Neither is the malice of black hats associated in any tiniest way with anyone's skin color. The black==bad is a fundamental feature of all humans. Black people also fear the dark and not the sun.
jointpdf 6y ago
I’m not taking a stance on the issue, but this quote from the article illustrates how blacklist vs. whitelist is different than the examples you gave: > “Others pointed to the dualism between black and white as representing evil and good, concepts that have been around since the dawn of civilizations, long before racial divides even existed between humans.” The supporters of the current terminology use this to bolster their argument, but I believe it’s also at the core of the argument against the use of terms like blacklist/whitelist. The idea is that the black vs. white = evil vs. good (like, MTG card colors) can “spill over” into dark skin vs. light skin = evil vs. good. This is an interesting article related to this effect: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-bad-is-black-effect/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-bad-is-black-... Ok fine, I’ll take a weakly-held stance: this seems like a bit of a stretch, and distracts from the more serious ways in which systemic racism manifests itself. On the other hand, I see no need to become outraged—words fall out of favor all the time (go play with the Google n-grams viewer to see for yourself).

mindslight 6y ago

The inanity is best summed up in an image macro: https://imgur.com/gallery/QR1UXz1 https://imgur.com/gallery/QR1UXz1

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

"> Discussions about the topic started late last night after David Kleidermacher[1], VP of Engineering at Google, and in charge of Android Security and the Google Play Store, withdrew from a scheduled talk he was set to give in August at the Black Hat USA 2020 security conference." it's usually entitled white people who feel immediately offended by this. With entitled I mean, finished university working at a top position in a large company on a 6 figure salary. It's never the worker POC who is slaving away in an Amazon warehouse or working 3 jobs in the gig economy to feed their family. It's just a cheap way to get your name in the news and to me (personally) these people are very misguided. They're well read no doubt but nevertheless wrong. Guess it's easier as an exec at a multinational company to pander to this rather than tackling their transfer-pricing crimes they commit with their Double Irish / Dutch Sandwiches[2]. Banning language like this is a very dangerous path: “Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for commiting thought-crime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occcured to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?” -- George Orwell "1984" [1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/davekleidermacher/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/davekleidermacher/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_and_the_Men_Who_Stole_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_a...

rbecker 6y ago
> it's usually entitled white people who feel immediately offended by this Judging by the name, David Kleidermacher is Jewish. Edit: Flagged? But it was the parent post that brought up race, yet it remains unflagged. Why was that instance OK, but this isn't?
tdeck 6y ago

hintymad 6y ago

It is offensive because the word "black" in the phrase has negative connotation, right? If so, the stance Google engineer took was not progressive enough. I suggest a purge with rigorous examination on at least the following phrases on top of my mind: black cat black money black sheep black frost black market black humor black plague black widow black monday black ops black hand black death black magic black propaganda black economy black book black prince black eye black marketeer blackmail Oh, and do remember to cancel this website: https://www.bourncreative.com/meaning-of-the-color-black/ https://www.bourncreative.com/meaning-of-the-color-black/, as well as all the discussion about the sensation of the black color. In a racist's eyes, everything is about racism.

hintymad 6y ago
And I don't understand the downvote. The Google justice fighter didn't ask to rename "black hat" because of negative connotation? If it is about negative connotation, why is it wrong to examine all phrases, especially the ones like "black market" and "black hand"?
- prepend 6y ago
  It’s wrong because of bikeshedding and spends resources on unimportant things. Racism is important. Hacking is important. Spending cycles working in these areas is better than helping those who struggle with googling “is blackhat a racist term?” In this case the speaker shut off discussion anyway by not participating. So he’s not “examining all phrases,” he’s issuing judgement on a phrase. And his judgement seems silly to me. I don’t know the subject so perhaps his material is great, but based on this one action it seems unlikely that his judgement would be great on blackhat hacking, but ridiculous in this area.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

TACIXAT 6y ago

It is doing the opposite of what it appears to be doing here. Blackhat is incredibly prestigious, expensive, and largely corporate and government in attendance. If there really was some association to race (I do not think there is), this would be a positive example. What I would like to see all these people do, who are doing find and replace in repos, is to show up to local city council meetings. They should find out what changes would be most impactful for minorities in their city and fight for those. Changing 100 tech conference names will never negate the economic damage of them blocking housing development in the single family home neighborhoods that they live in around Mountain View.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

If someone sees the phrase "Black Hat" and immediately thinks of negative stereotypes about black people, I really feel like they're the one with unconscious bias that needs to be broken down.

abellerose 6y ago

I'm white so I can only postulate from other experiences where I can actually relate. I think the question of "black hat" may in fact be offensive is valid criticism of our culture using "black" to be on the opposite side of a spectrum compared to white; where humans think the white side is possibly noble while the black side deserves some form of contempt. I think it's a red herring to think about other combinations of words having "black" before the following word and where no negative feeling exists from it. Example: black swan Should people care? IDK

tridentlead 6y ago
My herring is deeply offended.

galvin 6y ago

It's clear that some of the language we use needed to be changed, the previously used terms for primary and secondary hard drives are an obvious example. It seems to me that the notions related to black and white have broader cultural associations though. Light and dark or day and night have long been associated with good and bad. White similarly has associations with good and innocence hence the use for wedding dresses. I'm not convinced that we can easily rid ourselves of these deep rooted notions.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
You're still giving the idea too much credit, I think. Black is just a color. The attitude that all black-colored things are intrinsically associated with black people is itself bizarre and problematic.
- galvin 6y ago
  I agree with you. All colours have associations and there are more pressing issues that need to be dealt with.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  When people see a man wearing pink, they think of them as being gay or effeminate. Men wearing pink might be assaulted because of this association. Things are ultimately not 'just colors' because culture and society inform our reactions to color. That's one of the reasons why they want to avoid the connotations of black = evil because on some level that does tune our bias in a certain way.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I’m sorry, I really do want to try and understand, but I’m just completely lost on how to seriously engage with this argument.
    - fzeroracer 6y ago
      Per my previous comment then, how about 'yellow peril'? Color coding for racist elements has a long and storied history across the world. Nothing exists as simply just a color in many environments because the usage of color matters in context.

burlesona 6y ago

My understanding is that the terms “black hat” and “white hat” stem from Western movies where the villains and heroes would typically wear black and white hats, respectively. I’m not aware of a racial association, but perhaps I just don’t know about it?

dogma1138 6y ago
There isn’t and it is indeed comes from westerns, tho this predates what most people would consider the classical / spaghetti western era and has its origins in early black and white and silent films.
dmtroyer 6y ago
I think it is worthwhile to examine why westerns chose to use the symbolism of black and white hats.
- cheesecracker 6y ago
  Christianity perhaps?
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    Perhaps? Is that your go to boogeyman?
    - cheesecracker 6y ago
      WTF? No, it just seems that they use white as symbol for purity and god - angels clad in white, brides in white dresses... My sincere apologies for growing up in a Christian culture, making me an evil colonialist by birth. How can I make amends? Boogeyman - we are talking about the colors black and white here. Get off your high horse!
      - badrabbit 6y ago
        No,this is a universal concept. Night vs day, dark vs light. A strong light is associated with the color white, if you grew up in a Christian culture then you should know the Bible does speak a lot against judging people by appearances. I am not on a high horse, but you picked a belief out of nowhere as if it was particularly significant to the topic, so boogeyman seemed an appropriate characterization.

claudeganon 6y ago

Does this sudden upswell in irrelevant language policing not seem like some kind of coordinated op to discredit BLM? I don’t question that real people fall for it, but considering how wildly successful it’s been at distracting from material demands, like ending police violence, and how much the media has embraced these stories while ignoring ongoing protests, has me a little tinfoily...

twic 6y ago
Hey, please don't engage in hate speech against tin foil.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I think it's an inevitable consequence of the well-intentioned demands that everyone should take action. If you're a conscientious big company VP, with a strong belief that you should take action but no actual power to reform the police, doing something performative but splashy is the obvious choice.
Delk 6y ago
I'm looking at things from across the pond and then some, but I think it's some kind of a reaction -> counter-reaction -> counter-counter-reaction thing. I don't think it's meant to discredit BLM although it might end up doing that. <div class="wall-of-text"> Some people genuinely feel outsiders in a field, or might not see it as a real possibility because it feels foreign. Some parts of language and culture might actually maintain that, although (generally speaking) not due to malice by other people. Other parts just are, and don't actually do much of anything. Some people then want to change that feeling of outsideness, some more than others. Some of the people who personally feel the most strongly about it are the people coming from the backgrounds that aren't traditionally associated with tech. They're often also from ethnic minorities, or women. Some of those people feel extremely strongly about it. It gets tied to their other experiences with being at a disadvantage, or of blatant racism. Others (partially rightly) then want to support it. But some of those people who have experienced disadvantage are really, really angry, and want to attack everything that reminds them of the injustice they've experienced. And because some honestly unrelated things become mentally tied to that, they also become microaggressions, or something. (Microaggressions are probably a real thing, but if you start wanting to catch all of them, you'll also end up catching a lot of false positives. Specificity and sensitivity and all that.) Then there are people who actually either feel subconsciously threatened by others competing for the same positions, status and authority, or who are actually racists and feel other ethnic groups shouldn't get the same things they have. Those two groups of people aren't the same, although they probably intertwine. And it's actually quite human to feel the former in various degrees. Maybe even the latter, considering how common it is in the world, but it's easier to see that as nefarious. And then there are people who just don't like unnecessary change. And those who just don't like the feeling of someone else pushing a way of speaking, thinking or acting on them without really good reason. (I think a lot of HN readers fall into that latter category, as do many classical liberals. I certainly do.) A lot of people just fall into one social group and context out of the above, because humans are herd animals and having a group is massively important to the vast majority of us. All of that somehow leads to an unholy mess. Actual racists want to push their agenda and attack those whom they see as their political enemies; opposing any agenda that purports to be antiracist seems to play into the hands of racists; some people get caught in the middle because they don't want to support the racists but also don't like the idea that the language they're used to using needs to change, especially if it doesn't seem like a big thing; some of those not-a-big-things appear to be big things to other people, but who can tell who's really right; others get caught in the middle because they're a bit insecure of their own position and are thus disincentivized of advancing other people's positions, yet don't want to associate with the blatant racists either. Some get caught in the middle because they want things to make sense to them, and "we all need to get behind this because someone somewhere has the emotional need for that" doesn't cut it. Because there are 7 billion emotional needs, and that's if you only count humans. So the requirement of hypersensitivity (and even blatantly creating problems) makes many people who aren't even racist uncomfortable; the actual racists use this to their advantage, and overreaction by antiracists provides ample attack surface; and in the eyes of those who feel very strongly about antiracism opposing any of their views (including about microaggressions) become something to oppose. Meanwhile, some of the people in the middle actually have mildly racist views, or feel threatened, or just want to maintain more of a status quo because they're, by personality, somewhat conservative people who don't like rapid change. Or they dislike being pushed into something, or out of something (such as use of language). But because some of the people in the middle are actually supportive of mild racism, or uncomfortable of facing the reality of it, attacking the middle also becomes a valid argument. And because people don't like feeling like being attacked, some of the people in that middle then gravitate towards the right-wing end. Because the racists aren't attacking them; it seems like the strong antiracists are. You then end up with two polar opposites that reinforce themselves, and each other. And with some people caught in the middle who, for better or for worse reasons, don't really want to side with either. </div> Sorry if I got carried away. But I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I honestly don't think the people pushing for language policing in a hypersensitive manner are trying to discredit BLM, and I'm not really sure most of them are necessarily "virtue-signaling" either. Some of them are, but most of them are probably just reacting to something that they either personally find offensive (even though their actual enemy is the real racists, not (most of) those in the middle) or to something their in-group opposes. It's just a complex social dynamic, not a conspiracy.

mikenew 6y ago

Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress. It reminds me of that joke from The Office where Michael acts like the term "Mexican" is problematic. If there is a real problem here I am genuinely happy to hear about it and try to understand. I would love to see more diversity in computer science and I think the entire industry would benefit. But it sure feels like some rich white engineer taking advantage of a social movement to broadcast their own virtue.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress. It isn't (though recognizing that using the term “black” in ways which actually evoke racial stereotypes is), but both hostile provocateurs (deliberately) and people who don't understand the actual issue but want to try to appear supportive because they see social advantage (out of ignorance) act in ways which associate a more general rejection of the word “black” with what people genuinely concerned about social progress are trying to do.
el_nahual 6y ago
Without commenting on whether or not "black hat" is offensive, you're straw-manning the argument. The argument isn't that "black" is offensive, but rather that it's connotation with negative things is. To use your The Office example, it would be as if "bad" hackers were called "Mexican hat" hackers, forbidden lists "Mexican lists", etc. (Except not, because "Mexican" only means a kind of person, whereas "black" means many things, but that's the argument being made).
- salawat 6y ago
  Boulderdash. There is not a damn thing offensive about a combination of <color><noun>. We use constructs like that all the time. Or are we going to start saying "red lights" are offensive? Or "yellow lights"? Around yellow proceed with caution! Red means Stop! Danger! How about "Dark rooms"? Should we avoid that? Change red-black trees to green purple? Or hell, lets rope the electrical engineers into it. How dare black be the color of the negative cable. What's white? Oh, ground? You mean where everything ends up going? Heavens, pull the wiring out! This moral panic reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis. >"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals." Truly, in these Times have the moral busybodies had their Jimmy's rustled.

wazoox 6y ago

Also "MITM" (man in the middle), "Whitelist" and "Blacklist", even "Sanity Check". This is all very aligned with a general trend of cheap moralization and virtue signalling that actually achieves nothing but makes as much noise as possible and poison every discussion with identity politics, by seeing prejudice and bigotry everywhere.

throwaway25789 6y ago
> actually achieves nothing It's worse than nothing. It sucks up oxygen that could be used elsewhere. Outrage/attention is a finite resource, and the more of it is blown on topics like this, the less is available to spend on things like income inequality, hiring biases, incarceration rates, police brutality, social programs, diversity/representation in media/politics, etc. At this moment in time the Black Lives Matter movement has precious momentum that must not be squandered. To put it bluntly: distractions like this are actively harmful, and become more harmful the more attention they receive. Focus is crucial.
- mnm1 6y ago
  Absolutely. BLM asks to put a stop to police brutality/racism and stupid white people decide to change the phrase "grandfathered" or "you guys" in response. Or to put down entire languages like Spanish because they use gendered nouns. A more tone deaf response would be hard to achieve. Even those of us who have supported the cause against police brutality and racism for years are now losing interest and energy. If this is the outcome of the protests, they were indeed all for naught, just spreading corona so a bunch of idiots can feel better about themselves thinking they made a change in the world by censoring others' speech. How absurd.
  - josteink 6y ago
    > just spreading corona And causing riots, billions in property damages and innocent civilian lives lost (even before we’re considering the corona). At this point the BLM movement is a clear net negative for society.

hprotagonist 6y ago

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

hintymad 6y ago
This is a damn good summary.
- hprotagonist 6y ago
  C.S. Lewis had Dolores Umbridge's number long before she was ever dreamt up.

motohagiography 6y ago

I'm sorry, this is bonkers. I have presented at more than one Blackhat conference and since then I have seen the hacker scene reduced to nothing but a farm team for surveillance companies, domestic spy agencies, and totalitarian movements in academia because they think merely being against-bad is sufficient to be good. Hacking was always about individual competence as a check on technological dominion and absolute political power. Today, it's something you do to get noticed by people who rent you out for dog and pony shows to sell surveillance technologies. Security is no longer about protecting innovation and enabling a perimeter for safe creativity and exploration, it is about inserting a governance layer over the competent and other technologists, to ensure their subordination to a layer of interchangeable compromised sycophants. The movement to change these things has nothing to do with the content of "blackhat/whitehat." It is only about whether the people militating for the change have the power to cow others into submission. It is a test of whether the we will submit to the histrionic bullying by people in this movement. This is the same mechanism as the myth of Kim Jong Il hitting 11 consecutive holes in one, which was patently ridiculous, but designed to identify people who still have enough individual identity to recognize and resist the dominating absurdity of the movement behind it, who can't help but out themselves, so that they may be targeted by the movement for liquidation. What's worse, is people like this researcher aren't insane, they are calculated and cynical. This entire playbook is described by Hannah Arendt in her essay "Ideology and Terror," which was appended to her book, "The Origins of Totalitarianism." If this makes me the first to stop clapping, so be it. The stakes are high enough that bearing the risk of being honest is a greater service to others than anything else I will likely achieve. Good riddance.

neididipp 6y ago
So humans are being humans. It’s vanity to think we’re encountering some yet unknown human experience here. It’s new to us individually, but the historical record is littered with exactly your account of “what’s happening.” Administrative state wraps itself around the rubes brainstems to moderate agency. Obviously it’s fine when it comes to real harm to others. The problem is when a successful person believes that success for them is guaranteed. As much of mainstream America, it’s ridiculous billionaire class has come to believe. We’ve given them a monopoly on capital, fools. Capital = options. We have none. We’re stupid and must simply enter into debt agreements to exist as a member of an elitists flock. Or at least that’s the sound forms they might have used when the church owned everything. Just because the central authority doesn’t “legally” own things doesn’t mean we haven’t ended up right back in the same spot of being controlled by a spiteful hierarchy of self-aggrandizing but otherwise normal men. Less literally violent spot, of course, but still destructive of innate biological rhythms. People used to go about their day building shit. Now they need to coddle grandpas agreements. Pretty ironic for a country with a founding principle of “fuck gramps and his bullshit agreements.” Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, the dead should not rule the living. But here we are being guilted into servicing their debts, their opinion on hierarchy, their old demands for wars over what really could have been mental illness back in the day. Somehow if it’s on paper it’s a force of reality, like gravity itself!

fzeroracer 6y ago

I'm not sure what the problem is. I've refactored methods and functions all the time to try and improve clarity. Removing words, changing meaning so that people who read it grok it. I don't have a problem with changing terms. But people take a hard-line ideological stance against it because they perceive change as being weak or a slippery slope or something.

Nasrudith 6y ago
It is because of the actor really. Conceptually their strategy is "if they give an inch take a mile and keep on taking" while using every bit to beat them with it over every little petty issue. The way to shut them down is to tell them to take a hike from the start to deny any leverage. Reconsider if they have anything worthy of consideration. Part of effecfive communication is not looking like a bad actor with an approach.

DLA 6y ago

Instead of this cancel culture BS, maybe we dedicate more effort and outrage to real problems—-remember cancer, inequality, poverty, global warming, runaway national debt, defense issues, deforestation, plastic waste (and rain, apparently), clean water shortages, etc. Hey but let’s make sure we rename that default branch to main or remove specific keywords from code bases (none of which has anything to do with race). It’s fine. Those real problems can wait for some day.

mike503 6y ago

I’ve seen a lot of good examples of black being bad, but black also is a positive thing in many contexts. Amex Black card? Or other cards? A sign of prestige. Black limousines and towncars are seen as prestigious. Black clothes make you look thinner; plenty of women like to outfit themselves in black as much as possible. The gothic look primarily deals in black. Never seen or heard anyone try to link some sort of racial relation to it. It’s weird that “black <something>” is now being looked at so critically, especially since “black people” isn’t even a properly descriptive term, but one that may even have roots itself as the “white man’s N word” back in the day. However it seems to the acceptable phrase. I’m now going to see what the epidemiology of that is, I’m curious who came up with it.

mike503 6y ago
I should elaborate my point slightly. Even Wikipedia says this: “For many other individuals, communities and countries, "black" is perceived as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result is neither used nor defined, especially in African countries with little to no history of colonial racial segregation” [1] So to many (maybe not in US) it already is an offensive term. My thought would be why not move past the term of black people to something more universal with no historical questionability, and not get caught up in “is black <something>” offensive. Instead of having to fight and question a lot of black <something> due to its actual color, embrace a more transcendent new term (much like Indian vs Indigenous Person vs Native American, that movement) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people Edit for minor typo

heynow12 6y ago

The only thing offensive about this is the way white people are hijacking the narrative and making the actual point of what peope of color are actually asking for get lost in bullshit.