11 ms·

>many, though, actually do work for defense and intelligence contractors. Should they be banned because of their affiliation? Absolutely. The hacker community

• res0nat0r 13y ago
  James Bamford pointed out in The Shadow Factory (back in 2008), that much of the "surveillance-industrial complex" is outsourced and that much of this bleeding edge tech is in fact coming from private companies (Narus, companies originating from Israel, etc). Should DEFCON setup a review board to ban employees from private companies they also don't agree with?
  • mcantelon 13y ago
    Why not? Contributing to the knowledge of companies such at Narus is detrimental to the good of humanity.
    • foobarbazqux 13y ago
      When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity?
      • mcantelon 13y ago
        If one doesn't want to be besmirched by the dealings of an employer that profits from supplying mass surveillance tech then one should work elsewhere.
        • kingkilr 13y ago
          How are you defining things that are to the detriment of humanity? Which ethical system are you making judgements like that on? Does the scale of things that are bad for humanity come into play?
          • mcantelon 13y ago
            If you want to make a case for an "ethical system" in which mass surveillance is good for humanity be my guest (and PM me your email login credentials while you're at it: I promise not to use them irresponsibly).
            • icebraining 13y ago
              You're not the NSA; defending mass surveillance by them is not incompatible with not trusting you with one's email account. Not that I defend mass government surveillance, I'm just tired of that pseudo-argument.
              • mcantelon 13y ago
                The NSA is made up on individuals like you or me and Edward Snowden has made the case that there's little preventing any insider from accessing what they want on whomever they want. As the surveillance state becomes an accepted part of modern society there will be those who seek involvement in it expressly for the purpose of abusing or exploiting their power.
                • twoodfin 13y ago
                  Actually, I don't think Snowden has made that case. He's asserted it, certainly, but things like the PRISM slides don't back him up.
                • icebraining 13y ago
                  They are individuals, yes (though they are certainly not random people), but they still operate within a structure that shapes their actions. For example, while I oppose it on philosophical grounds, I don't see an NSA operator exploiting my email credential for any personal purpose. But some random guy on HN - who knows? He might just post them on 4chan for the lulz. It's simply a facile argument that weakens the real arguments against mass state surveillance.
                  • 13y ago
        • foobarbazqux 13y ago
          So discrimination against employees is okay if you don't like the employer?
          • RyanZAG 13y ago
            Certainly, yes. Is it not ok to discriminate against someone who has joined a terrorist group and is actively helping them? Is an army medic not rightly discriminated against by the other side if the medic's side loses the war? Discrimination is bad when it's about 'who someone is', never when it's about 'what someone does'. Providing work and support in exchange for money is very much 'what someone does'.
            • foobarbazqux 13y ago
              So from your two examples, discrimination on the basis of one's employer is okay if the employer is not recognized as legitimate by the state, taxes are not remitted, etc. How do you decide if it's okay or not to discriminate against employees when the employer in question is legal? You say it's never bad. How do you know that? Is it okay for the IRS to discriminate on the basis of one's employer? What about other arms of the government?
              • mcantelon 13y ago
                >How do you decide if it's okay or not to discriminate against employees when the employer in question is legal? What is legal and what is ethical are not necessarily the same thing, hence laws changing to make slavery illegal, etc. Ethical considerations often result in the changing of laws.
                • foobarbazqux 13y ago
                  So ethical things can be illegal, unethical things can be legal. Would discrimination against the employees of a legal employer in one's own state (country) ever be unethical?
                  • 13y ago
      • PavlovsCat 13y ago
        When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity? Employers are kinda made up of the people that work for them. Any attempts to disassociate the two shall fail. So yes, humanity is better when people actually have experience consequences for their actions -- instead of hiding behind other people, or symbols even, like "employer". We're not talking about being mean to people because of their skin color, or not selling them ice cream because they're working for the Mafia. We're talking not selling them weapons, and not letting them buy you drinks and whatnot, because they're working for the Mafia. That's exactly appropriate. What's next, not "discriminating" against people because they are running marathons for the Rapists Association, even though they're not rapists themselves? Boo-hoo, really. You're making a mockery out of the word "discrimination" here. You're equating withdrawing support from those who do harm with being mean to handicapped people and whatnot: Fuck that, utterly and completely.
        • gizmo686 13y ago
          >What's next, not "discriminating" against people because they are running marathons for the Rapists Association, even though they're not rapists themselves? Boo-hoo, really. Can you leave free speech out of this. Returning to the main point, the bigger problem with discriminating based on employer is that employers are very large entities. We cannot expect everyone to know everything their employer is doing, let alone be responsible or actively contributing to it. Also, as dalke points out, there is legal precedent precident that discrimination based on employers is discrimination (specifically the ACLU kicked out a non-uniformed unannounced police officer). Granted this was only a violation of (California) state law, but the law had a specific list of protected classes, and employer was not on it.
          • PavlovsCat 13y ago
            Can you leave free speech out of this. Maybe, if you could kindly explain what you mean by that, because I don't get it. the bigger problem with discriminating based on employer is that employers are very large entities. We cannot expect everyone to know everything their employer is doing, let alone be responsible or actively contributing to it There are over a hundred hours of Adolf Eichmann trials on Youtube. Watch any one of them, provided it contains him defending himself. So if the bigger problem is a complete non-issue, what does that say about the smaller ones? Also, as dalke points out, there is legal precedent precident that discrimination based on employers is discrimination (specifically the ACLU kicked out a non-uniformed unannounced police officer). Granted this was only a violation of (California) state law, but the law had a specific list of protected classes, and employer was not on it. What is legal or not might be an issue for the organizers, granted, but personally I care more about what is right and what isn't. So if they break the laws for this, more power to them; if they can find a loophole, also fine. Private clubs can invite whoever they fuck they want, for example; this wouldn't be very practical, but there's nearly always a way.
      • GigabyteCoin 13y ago
        Would you think it a wise idea to offer any form of training to an active member of the Nazi regime?
      • tripzilch 13y ago
        > When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity? Ever since we decided "just following orders" isn't a valid excuse.
      • flyinRyan 13y ago
        Lots of reasons. If someone were employed by, say, the Gestapo then it's pretty clear you would want to discriminate against them.
        • foobarbazqux 13y ago
          You're the 3rd person to try and Godwin the thread. Can we stick to discrimination against the employees of legal employers in one's own state that one recognizes as legitimate and one is not in active rebellion against?
          • flyinRyan 13y ago
            Can we stfu about Godwin? Do you even know what it means? It's from the time of usenet and all it was was an observation that when the Nazi's come up the discussion is usually over. It's certainly not a good excuse to go ignoring important lessons in history. Nazi Germany is one of the better examples of why "just doing my job" is not a valid excuse for anything.
            • foobarbazqux 13y ago
              Actually Godwin only said that the longer discussions on the internet get, the greater the chance of someone making a comparison to the Nazis. Various groups decided that if this event occurred it was an indicator that the person who made the comparison had lost the debate and that the discussion was over.
              • flyinRyan 13y ago
                Various groups may have decided that, and may even be right in some cases but there are plenty of valid reasons to bring up the Nazis for base line comparisons.
• alwaysdoit 13y ago
  Wouldn't it be nice to have some people working in government that are not interested in undermining privacy and feeding the surveillance-industrial complex?
  • mcantelon 13y ago
    Those sorts of people can, like Edward Snowden, find their own way into the system.
  • PavlovsCat 13y ago
    Nice? Nice would be if "government" or "politician" was something every citizen did on the side and all the time, like breathing, instead of it being a profession. What you are suggesting is "slightly better than the worst", but nowhere near "nice" in my books. Also, for what? So the rest can hide behind them? Because that's what effectively happens. Very little change, very great excuse. We couldn't even discuss police brutality here without some people moaning about how some cop or other is a decent person, as if generalizing to make a point is somehow worse than shooting unarmed people. Not that I don't hear the point you're trying to make, I used to think that too, I don't anymore. When something is past the point of return, just throwing people at it won't turn it around, it just wastes perfectly good people. I'd rather lean on the assholes who currently work for assholes, to stop being assholes, than send non-assholes into that grinder.
  • BWStearns 13y ago
    There are in fact those people, in fact they probably represent the majority. I think when everything is said and done it is likely to be the case that all of this overreach was driven by either top-tier leadership or the political levels as opposed to some imaginary spooky minion bent on some mass-voyeuristic fantasy.
• IanCal 13y ago
  So you're saying we shouldn't have open source? Shouldn't publish information from conferences?
  • mcantelon 13y ago
    Not publishing information would harm legitimate community. What is published, however, isn't the entirety of the value a conference provides. Anyone who attends conferences knows that much of the useful information is gained outside of talks. Malicious organizations personally attend conferences not simply to watch the talks in person, but to gather intelligence on infosec and target attendees and to create employee/CI relationships.
• jabbernotty 13y ago
  I think you are confusing the current social/political issue (overreaching surveillance) with the mere fact that surveillance technology exists (a neutral thing, in and out of itself). This would be like speaking out against police in general, because police can be corrupt. It is understandable, but not realistic; we still want those robberies, murders and break-ins solved.
  • mcantelon 13y ago
    Overreaching surveillance has been an open secret since ECHELON was revealed. The idea of mass surveillance tech existing without being abused is great, theoretically, but may not work in practice. Yes, we want intelligence organizations to do their jobs ethnically, but there is currently no reason for them to do so. Therefore, until there is a reason for these organizations to behave, it is entirely rational to do everything possible to lessen their currently excessive power.
• javert 13y ago
  I completely agree with your argument. However, this seems to imply that all American hackers/entrepreneurs/etc.need to move to remote cabins in Montana and stop contributing to society, because anyone who contributes to society in America is directly supporting this system (albeit, 1 degree removed from those working directly for the government). I currently don't know a way around this problem, and I don't actually want to stop being productive. I've had this on my mind for a while. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
  • Ihmahr 13y ago
    As a European graduate this is what keeps me away from moving to the bay area. Maybe you also could consider moving to a country with less surveillance?
    • wwhitman 13y ago
      Which country would that be?
      • stefantalpalaru 13y ago
        Switzerland.
        • Shivetya 13y ago
          considering how they rolled over with the banking issue I would not trust my data there anymore than some place else. What is to stop them from doing the same with any data should the US come knocking? Even your President seems to believe criminal investigation of Snowden may be warranted. Now if your government finally does take a stand on the banking issue and tells US authorities to take a hike I would be more inclined to have similar faith in your nation as you do.
          • flyinRyan 13y ago
            One advantage of Switzerland is that the people have a much stronger voice in telling their politicians to do exactly that (and in some cases, voting on the issues themselves).