6 ms·

Pretty rich, coming out of an organization that assaulted and chased Vincent Canfield out of CCC for . . . . owning trollish domain names. I'm sure the present

by caeril 5y ago

Pretty rich, coming out of an organization that assaulted and chased Vincent Canfield out of CCC for . . . . owning trollish domain names. I'm sure the presenter doesn't necessarily share the Congress's values, but it's funny nonetheless.

blueflow 5y ago
Bonus Point: The CrewCrew (Congress Security) is a barely documented all-female "security" gang. Men are not allowed to join. There are rumors that the President of the CCC controls it directly. Questions of accountability are still not answered.
- jstanley 5y ago
  Are you sure? I couldn't find any relevant results for "CrewCrew" in the context of the Chaos Communications Congress.
  - blueflow 5y ago
    Thats why i said "barely documented". Its mentioned on https://help.ccc.de/security/index.html https://help.ccc.de/security/index.html and definitely present at the congress and related events like the camp, they wear characteristic shirts.
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    I am not agreeing with the tinfoil "controlled by the CCC president" rhetoric, but a lot of CCC events including their Congress indeed use an all female (identity) volunteer group calling itself "CrewCrew" as security. They are known to be a bit "paranoid" sometimes, can act "overly aggressive" sometimes and like to disguise their faces during "enforcement". That said, I did not have first hand interactions with them, so that's just my impression of them seeing them around and some hearsay from people who had minor interactions with them. But they do not seem very accountable, and they are in my humble opinion a bit of a sore on the otherwise very well organized Congress. Especially considering this in the context of the CCC, who for years ran and runs campaigns for more police accountability.
    - blueflow 5y ago
      Until the escalation at 36C3, we thought the incident at 35C3 was: A random guy from the CrewCrew (new security persons) came to our assembly and got offended by VC's domain. They parted without reaching conclusions. Only after the escalation at 36C3 i learned that: - that guy at 35C3 was the CCC's president - seemingly being an exception of the "all-female" rule - the "CrewCrew" are not just some activists, but some sort of authorized force - that the incident at 35C3 included a house ban, this came as a surprise to the auditory witnesses - the president believed that this was Vincent Canfields assembly (it was fuwafuwa by lesderid, there never was a cockmail asm) The internal CCC email the president wrote in January 2020 consisted mostly of smearing VC because he was one of the "bad guys" and it was justified in beating him and kicking him out. It turned out they actually stole VC's phone and had to give it back later. No details on what actually caused the differences between the president and VC. We can't even rule out a personal feud. There were rumors that the CrewCrew was not certified for 35a Gewerbeordnung and thus illegal to be official security. Its references were scrubbed from the 35C3 and 36C3 wiki around the same time, in early 2020. The whole story is very fishy and gave me the last straw to part with the CCC. Excuse my tinfoil hat, but there are some serious things going on in the CCC mothership.
      - rndgermandude 5y ago
        >- the "CrewCrew" are not just some activists, but some sort of authorized force Legally, they would be "Ordner"[1], and are thereby "authorized". It is perfectly legal for organizers of "assemblies" to recruit and use volunteers to keep order and peace, as long as these volunteers are unarmed (by law). The Gewerbeordnung does not come into play here. I am not quite sure they were up to snuff when it comes to identification, tho, as legally they have to wear a white armband saying "Ordner", and I do not think they did when I saw them (they did however have those t-shirts and other swag if memory serves right). But I might be wrong. I am sure some people, maybe even the CCC president, were offended by Vincent's websites - to be offensive is a goal Vincent stated himself - and the CCC leadership then decided to ban him. We may debate if this was justified or free speech or whatever, but at the end of the day, the organizer of the Congress told him to fuck off. There might have been misunderstandings along the way, and/or the CCC may have changed their initial decision and/or fucked up their communication (they are human, after all). But the end result was a ban from the venue. As I said in another comment, I find the assault of Vincent that then occurred extremely problematic, probably outright illegal assault (I see no evidence of justified self-defense by the security in the video). At the same time, I respect the CCC's decision to ban an "undesirable". The club members have to figure out for themselves who they want at their events and in their spaces. And as I also said earlier, I find the lack of accountability of the security "crew" very disconcerting. You cannot have people running around playing police (their Congress-internal DECT phone number even is "110", same as the police has in the public telephone network) who beat up people and cover their faces to hide their identities, all the while the CCC which these security people represent runs campaigns to get laws changed to make police more accountable by having officers to clearly be identifiable (by a number on their uniforms), wearing bodycams and raising the limits on when police is allowed to use force. [1] https://dejure.org/gesetze/VersG/9.html https://dejure.org/gesetze/VersG/9.html
jnsaff2 5y ago
Are you attacking the presenter or CCC? On first read it might seem as you are mixing them together and it can be quite unfair to the presenter if you are only mad at CCC.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
morsch 5y ago
I have no idea why he got thrown out, but he apparently provides anonymous email that's used for bomb threats and had the slogan "Hitler did nothing wrong" on one of his websites (hosted in Germany, no less), so it's not hard to imagine he gave them more reason than owning rude domains. Not saying it was justified (don't know, don't really care, I'm not affiliated or involved), but you're not giving the whole picture.
woodruffw 5y ago
> Pretty rich, coming out of an organization that assaulted and chased Vincent Canfield out of CCC for . . . . owning trollish domain names. Are you sure it wasn't him being an open and virulent racist[1]? Edit: I should say that I have the dubious distinction of actually haven spoken to vc for several years on IRC. He might have started as a troll, but he's failed in the way that every bad troll fails: by getting high on his own supply. [1]: https://twitter.com/gexcolo https://twitter.com/gexcolo
- blueflow 5y ago
  Lets turn this around: Can you produce a record of him being actually racist, not just throwing around critical humor?
- c0m 5y ago
  If he's an open and virulent racist you should have better proof than a twitter account. I read all the tweets he made this year. He posts on Gab, posted a clip from an offensively named Danish satire film, and generally seems about as unpleasant as I'd expect for someone who owns the type of domains he owns but he does not seem to be openly racist. If you're going to label someone as an "open and virulent racist" you should at least have some evidence to support it. It's unwise to make such extraordinary claims without evidence beyond "trust me bro", particularly on an account linked to your real-life identity as this could reasonably be seen as libellous if it's untrue.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > If he's an open and virulent racist you should have better proof than a twitter account. Sure. Here's vc calling someone who isn't nonwhite a "creature" and implying that they would discriminate against whites[1]. Here's vc hanging out with a bunch of people wearing white nationalist apparel and holding a sign that references a racist meme[2]. > It's unwise to make such extraordinary claims without evidence beyond "trust me bro", particularly on an account linked to your real-life identity as this could reasonably be seen as libellous if it's untrue. I fortunately live in a country with strong protections against frivolous libel and defamation claims. What an ironic threat to make! [1]: https://twitter.com/gexcolo/status/1441549739087048708 https://twitter.com/gexcolo/status/1441549739087048708 [2]: https://twitter.com/gexcolo/status/1307057430761738252 https://twitter.com/gexcolo/status/1307057430761738252

by caeril 5y ago

blueflow 5y ago

Bonus Point: The CrewCrew (Congress Security) is a barely documented all-female "security" gang. Men are not allowed to join. There are rumors that the President of the CCC controls it directly. Questions of accountability are still not answered.

jstanley 5y ago
Are you sure? I couldn't find any relevant results for "CrewCrew" in the context of the Chaos Communications Congress.
- blueflow 5y ago
  Thats why i said "barely documented". Its mentioned on https://help.ccc.de/security/index.html https://help.ccc.de/security/index.html and definitely present at the congress and related events like the camp, they wear characteristic shirts.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  I am not agreeing with the tinfoil "controlled by the CCC president" rhetoric, but a lot of CCC events including their Congress indeed use an all female (identity) volunteer group calling itself "CrewCrew" as security. They are known to be a bit "paranoid" sometimes, can act "overly aggressive" sometimes and like to disguise their faces during "enforcement". That said, I did not have first hand interactions with them, so that's just my impression of them seeing them around and some hearsay from people who had minor interactions with them. But they do not seem very accountable, and they are in my humble opinion a bit of a sore on the otherwise very well organized Congress. Especially considering this in the context of the CCC, who for years ran and runs campaigns for more police accountability.
  - blueflow 5y ago
    Until the escalation at 36C3, we thought the incident at 35C3 was: A random guy from the CrewCrew (new security persons) came to our assembly and got offended by VC's domain. They parted without reaching conclusions. Only after the escalation at 36C3 i learned that: - that guy at 35C3 was the CCC's president - seemingly being an exception of the "all-female" rule - the "CrewCrew" are not just some activists, but some sort of authorized force - that the incident at 35C3 included a house ban, this came as a surprise to the auditory witnesses - the president believed that this was Vincent Canfields assembly (it was fuwafuwa by lesderid, there never was a cockmail asm) The internal CCC email the president wrote in January 2020 consisted mostly of smearing VC because he was one of the "bad guys" and it was justified in beating him and kicking him out. It turned out they actually stole VC's phone and had to give it back later. No details on what actually caused the differences between the president and VC. We can't even rule out a personal feud. There were rumors that the CrewCrew was not certified for 35a Gewerbeordnung and thus illegal to be official security. Its references were scrubbed from the 35C3 and 36C3 wiki around the same time, in early 2020. The whole story is very fishy and gave me the last straw to part with the CCC. Excuse my tinfoil hat, but there are some serious things going on in the CCC mothership.
    - rndgermandude 5y ago
      >- the "CrewCrew" are not just some activists, but some sort of authorized force Legally, they would be "Ordner"[1], and are thereby "authorized". It is perfectly legal for organizers of "assemblies" to recruit and use volunteers to keep order and peace, as long as these volunteers are unarmed (by law). The Gewerbeordnung does not come into play here. I am not quite sure they were up to snuff when it comes to identification, tho, as legally they have to wear a white armband saying "Ordner", and I do not think they did when I saw them (they did however have those t-shirts and other swag if memory serves right). But I might be wrong. I am sure some people, maybe even the CCC president, were offended by Vincent's websites - to be offensive is a goal Vincent stated himself - and the CCC leadership then decided to ban him. We may debate if this was justified or free speech or whatever, but at the end of the day, the organizer of the Congress told him to fuck off. There might have been misunderstandings along the way, and/or the CCC may have changed their initial decision and/or fucked up their communication (they are human, after all). But the end result was a ban from the venue. As I said in another comment, I find the assault of Vincent that then occurred extremely problematic, probably outright illegal assault (I see no evidence of justified self-defense by the security in the video). At the same time, I respect the CCC's decision to ban an "undesirable". The club members have to figure out for themselves who they want at their events and in their spaces. And as I also said earlier, I find the lack of accountability of the security "crew" very disconcerting. You cannot have people running around playing police (their Congress-internal DECT phone number even is "110", same as the police has in the public telephone network) who beat up people and cover their faces to hide their identities, all the while the CCC which these security people represent runs campaigns to get laws changed to make police more accountable by having officers to clearly be identifiable (by a number on their uniforms), wearing bodycams and raising the limits on when police is allowed to use force. [1] https://dejure.org/gesetze/VersG/9.html https://dejure.org/gesetze/VersG/9.html

jnsaff2 5y ago

Are you attacking the presenter or CCC? On first read it might seem as you are mixing them together and it can be quite unfair to the presenter if you are only mad at CCC.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

morsch 5y ago

I have no idea why he got thrown out, but he apparently provides anonymous email that's used for bomb threats and had the slogan "Hitler did nothing wrong" on one of his websites (hosted in Germany, no less), so it's not hard to imagine he gave them more reason than owning rude domains. Not saying it was justified (don't know, don't really care, I'm not affiliated or involved), but you're not giving the whole picture.

woodruffw 5y ago

> Pretty rich, coming out of an organization that assaulted and chased Vincent Canfield out of CCC for . . . . owning trollish domain names. Are you sure it wasn't him being an open and virulent racist[1]? Edit: I should say that I have the dubious distinction of actually haven spoken to vc for several years on IRC. He might have started as a troll, but he's failed in the way that every bad troll fails: by getting high on his own supply. [1]: https://twitter.com/gexcolo https://twitter.com/gexcolo

blueflow 5y ago
Lets turn this around: Can you produce a record of him being actually racist, not just throwing around critical humor?
c0m 5y ago
If he's an open and virulent racist you should have better proof than a twitter account. I read all the tweets he made this year. He posts on Gab, posted a clip from an offensively named Danish satire film, and generally seems about as unpleasant as I'd expect for someone who owns the type of domains he owns but he does not seem to be openly racist. If you're going to label someone as an "open and virulent racist" you should at least have some evidence to support it. It's unwise to make such extraordinary claims without evidence beyond "trust me bro", particularly on an account linked to your real-life identity as this could reasonably be seen as libellous if it's untrue.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > If he's an open and virulent racist you should have better proof than a twitter account. Sure. Here's vc calling someone who isn't nonwhite a "creature" and implying that they would discriminate against whites[1]. Here's vc hanging out with a bunch of people wearing white nationalist apparel and holding a sign that references a racist meme[2]. > It's unwise to make such extraordinary claims without evidence beyond "trust me bro", particularly on an account linked to your real-life identity as this could reasonably be seen as libellous if it's untrue. I fortunately live in a country with strong protections against frivolous libel and defamation claims. What an ironic threat to make! [1]: https://twitter.com/gexcolo/status/1441549739087048708 https://twitter.com/gexcolo/status/1441549739087048708 [2]: https://twitter.com/gexcolo/status/1307057430761738252 https://twitter.com/gexcolo/status/1307057430761738252