16 ms·
Secure Ideas will not be presenting at DEF CON this year
- chadillac83 13y agoHopefully their talk will be replaced with a Q&A session with NSA reps.
- Buge 13y agoThat's the problem though. DEF CON doesn't want the NSA to come.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- techjournalist 13y agoI wonder how many others (if any) will follow your lead.
- gcb0 13y agosummary: they will not present, but they will.
- thrush 13y agothis is so awesome by Secure Ideas, and also an awful move by DEF CON. one of the largest problems with current state of technology is that what the fed is doing is possible. hopefully there will be a lot of talk about how to shift towards more secure services such as mesh nets and polymorphic encryption. the feds would have been good resources to talk to, and it's extremely hard to find an opportunity to have the kind of necessary talks outside of conventions like DEF CON.
- mullingitover 13y ago> one of the largest problems with current state of technology is that what the fed is doing is possible. I think you meant 'legal' but you accidentally wrote 'possible' instead. Mesh nets and polymorphic encryption don't stand a chance against a supoena and the threat of a lengthy imprisonment/huge fine for noncompliance.
- thrush 13y agoI said what I meant. And I think you're implying that the government doesn't use the same backdoors and web surveillance strategies that all black hats (anyone really) has the ability to deploy.
- pseudometa 13y agoDon't worry about the Fed's absence at DEF Con, they never attended for the content. They only wanted the meta data.
- mindcrime 13y agoAs a symbolic statement by DEF CON, I like the "no feds" thing. Pragmatically, it probably won't much much difference, since any Feds who want to attend can probably attend and just not identify themselves as feds. OK, yeah, Keith Alexander might be spotted, but the average run-of-the-mill FBI or NSA geek probably isn't all that recognizable unless they wear their official ID or something. BUT... looking at it from the "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" perspective, I'm not sure this is a Good Thing. The feds are going to do what they're going to do, regardless of what DEF CON does. Might as well invite them in, pick their brains, and learn as much as possible to help counter their shady machinations.
- toyg 13y ago"Spot the Fed" was a sport years ago: https://www.defcon.org/html/defcon-13/dc13-spotthefed.html https://www.defcon.org/html/defcon-13/dc13-spotthefed.html
- rmrfrmrf 13y agoMy major problem with the PRISM debacle was less that the NSA stores and analyzes Internet traffic (although it's perfectly reasonable to be upset about it) and more that they were doing it secretively (mixed with some disgust at how much money, energy, and time must be wasted storing and sifting through unfathomable amounts of data). With that in mind, it's kind of counterintuitive to close the door to conversation when silence was the issue in the first place. It almost seems like a melodramatic romance ("I just need to be alone right now."), which portrays the DEF CON organizers as reactionary and immature. I also think it creates unnecessary hostility when you disinvite a group of people that everyone seems to know will attend anyway. In fact, it just creates more secrecy.
- drivingmenuts 13y agoOrdinary citizens talking to the NSA isn't going to stop them, it's more likely to get those same concerned citizens put on any number of watchlists. At the moment, I have some serious doubt that even Congress can stop the NSA and am quite sure they're not going to bother, aside from making a little noise so it looks like they're defending The Constitution. What will put a stop to this is a Presidential Order, but that's not going to be forthcoming under any administration.
- samstave 13y agoI don't agree with the statement that Secure Ideas makes; they are opting out because DEFCON is supposed to be an open collaboration place, but if the very netsec community doesn't have the balls to stand up to the extreme over-reach of the NSA, then we are farked. Yes, most of us have known for years the extent of the spying the NSA/USG does -- and I believe it's time to take back some individual sovereignty -- the NSA has all but dissolved this. For me, this is not a political issue, its a human rights issue. I have no respect for the NSA and its apologists, period.
- mpyne 13y ago> I have no respect for the NSA and its apologists, period. Do you lack respect for those people, or their arguments?
- samstave 13y agoI have no respect for the NSA and those who work there who perpetrate this surveillance state. So those people who have built this.
- stfu 13y agoExactly the right point! This needs to be personal - especially because we are not talking about some exploited minimal wage earners who have no other options. But instead about professionals who have made the intentional choice to dedicate 8h+ a day to organizations that set out to destroy privacy and private communication across the world.
- samstave 13y agoYour comment made me think of something.. Let me ask you: THe NSA in specific and the intelligence community in general clearly believes that the information about, opinions of and actions by equate to "a person" -- if they did not, they would not be surveilling what they are. Your question of whether I respect the "people" or their "arguments", appears to me, to be loaded. It's as if you're attempting to determine if I make a distinction between the people in the positions of NSA staff vs. the actions they take as a willing person under employ. I respect people: human beings. As a human being I see myself as a part of a singular species on a, thus far, singular planet in our universe. I am not an enemy of humanity - I am an advocate of it. The opinions arguments and actions of planetary governments though appear to actually be at odds with humanity and its longevity. So, on the one hand we have an agencies actions which distill a person to their digital DNA; analyses, evaluates and judges it coming to a conclusion in whole as to what that person "is" and a schism in our culture that you appear to be attempting to exploit: your question is attempting to play to my "humanity" with these being people who are just making decisions and arguments in line with the "orders and directives" of an institutional body such as the NSA/USG. Let me be very clear; I don't care who anyone works for, if you are attempting to control, oppress, exploit or succeed at the expense of people as a whole - you are an enemy to humanity. You could be an individual, a group, a corporation or a government. I stand for both my individual sovereignty and the collective well being of my species and civilization. This is what sets us apart from the insects; we are capable of thriving as collective individuals as opposed to hive-minded slaves.
- antitrust 13y agoI think they make a really good point, which is that true neutrality is something beneficial for the whole community. Besides, DEFCON's statement was symbolic. If the NSA is watching us constantly anyway, they're going to be hacking us and us hacking them even if we and/or they are not at the conference.
- stfu 13y agoLooks like somebody wants to nominate themselves for a government contract. A statement such as "We believe the exclusion of the "feds" this year does the exact opposite at a critical time." is just ridiculous. Even more bizarre is the idea of mentioning openness in the (current) government context. If there is a positive effect between the openness of the hacker community and the Feds then why did we end up with the current situation? The current situation is incredibly bad so I absolutely support the decision by DEF CON. Even if there is only one single occasion where people stop talking/avoiding a person who is working to close with government agencies this is a success. People who work for these agencies will always hide behind some "greater good" narrative and avoid taking personal responsibility. My hope is that by getting personally shunned by their former peer group it might help them realize that this is not longer just business-as-usual. Government loves to really up the public with the us vs them rhetoric so they definitely deserve a dose of their own medicine.
- ceol 13y ago> Government loves to really up the public with the us vs them rhetoric so they definitely deserve a dose of their own medicine. That sounds like it would increase the us-vs-them rhetoric, not decrease it.
- X4 13y agoNo pill can heal that wound. Imagine you're a Government worker with 15y of experience. You would automagically think about the public as "them". If you're an Admin or IT-Guy, you "already" do that, by separating you from the "Common User". And guess what, there is nothing wrong with this. It doesn't produce bad habits or bad intentions, because this is totally dependant on the persons character.
- Grabber 13y agoThey just have casino & hotel surveillance run facial recognition on everyone anyways.
- clicks 13y agoHere's hoping that the free time slots are now filled with talks that discuss ways to escape the surveillance state. Particularly how systems for the use of masses could be erected.
- malandrew 13y agoExactly. Democratizing defenses for the average person needs to become the norm. Every person in the world has the right to be free from government surveillance, both domestic and foreign.
- pyrocat 13y ago"We do not want to make this a "political" move" Bullshit, that's exactly what it is.
- fleitz 13y agoExactly, if it was non-political they'd just call up DEFCON and withdraw their talk.
- throwawayDC21 13y agoIt's also a PR move by both DEF CON and Secure Ideas.
- revelation 13y agoUhm.. the feds do not share or collaborate. They will prosecute any of their own who do give back. In fact, Keith Alexander came there last year to lie to your face.
- throwawayDC21 13y agoSure they do, I've had constructive conversations, advice and even patches submitted by feds (yes, I checked them thoroughly!). In my experience, vendors leech off the community more than the feds do.
- wyck 13y agoDEC CON is trying to retain some aspects of the community it cares about in order to prevent it from completely evolving into a pentagon pony show. You missed the point completely, your post is a contradiction and way off base.
- autodidakto 13y agoHad to scroll too far down to find this comment. Defcon's argument, which Secure Ideas didn't seem to get, was: P1) This is a place for those who believe in openness, sharing, and mutual gain. P2) Feds have been hiding the fact that they've been screwing us all along. Conclusion: This isn't a place for Feds. The blog posts states: "...but rather a continuation of openness that this event has always encouraged." But this is exactly why the Feds aren't allowed.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- stephengillie 13y agoHey, look: Secure Ideas managed to advertise themselves through a blog post and save money by not presenting, all in one move! What a stellar synergy of marketing and management!
- nookiemonster 13y agoDrama.exe There's this thing called sequestration going on that's disrupting the budgets of all the federal agencies. The feds are cutting budget for ridiculous things like the blue angels. But they're totally going to be maintaining the budget for hacker cons in Las Vegas. This is all about street cred for defcon & nothing to do with "taking a break." Jeff Moss is too sophisticated to be throwing away all those relationships. This is a stunt circle jerk.
- jff 13y agoAfter the GSA stunt a few years ago, you bet conference budgets have been cut. Departments are given a set budget for each conference--if I remember right, the DOE allocates $100k max per conference. Sounds like a lot, but then you see what happened to last year's Supercomputing conference. That's a weeklong conference traditionally attended by many of the DOE's large supercomputing community. $100k does not send many people to a week-long conference. This was enough to cause very notable effects on the conference as a whole; outlets such as The Register even commented on it. I've heard rumors that some companies may not be going this year because without the DOE there, it's just not as valuable for HPC vendors.
- wavesounds 13y agoIs Defcon worried about fights breaking out or something? You know the 'feds' are going to be there anyway. At least if they were in the open then everyone could give them a piece of their minds and maybe convince some of them to quit their jobs or at least give more consideration to the other perspective.
- dobbsbob 13y agoEven if the "feds" aren't officially invited to run a booth and take applications, they're gonna show up anyways probably three weeks before the event to install facial recognition cameras and audio recording bugs in all the hotel rooms (;
- malandrew 13y agoI'm sure that they don't need to. They just ask the casinos and other places to give them all the footage after the fact. Wouldn't you want to hold a conference like this in a place where all surveillance equipment were not standard so you can spot them as anomalies in the surroundings? I would imagine that every single person that has attended is on the list of people whose communications are stored indefinitely.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- downandout 13y agoAnyone can attend DEF CON, including feds that leave their badges in their wallets. That being the case, this statement was made for the benefit of exactly one audience: government procurement departments.
- rdl 13y agoWow, I got my talk down to "you or one other talk" and wasn't accepted (I did apply late). Tempted to see if they'll let me replace Secure Ideas. I have no problem with the "feds, please stay home" policy.
- abalone 13y agoThey make a good point: DEF CON has not given "concrete" reason for why they banned the feds. They merely allude to "recent revelations". I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of banning people for bad behavior, but DEF CON should spell out a concrete policy, apply it to everyone, and be specific about the offending actions.
- blueprint 13y agoIf they didn't 'want to make this a "political" move', why exactly did they write a public blog entry about it expounding their point of view?
- amerika 13y agoPure pretense. They're using the NSA debacle as an excuse to pander to the trend and headline-whore.
- malandrew 13y agoBy closing themselves to the US "feds" community, do they open themselves up to the larger international black hat community? I would imagine that any foreign black hat would have reservations about going to DEFCON. In fact, the DEFCON community probably benefits from diversifying globally by being held in other countries. I don't know anything about DEFCON, but how diversified is the audience that attends? Historically, have the overwhelming majority of non-fed attendees been US citizens? I would imagine that both Germany and Israel are well represented in the community. If so, how do they attend without risking being put on a no-entry list at the border?