
Feds, We Need Some Time Apart - rosser
https://www.defcon.org/#dc21fedbreak
======
ENOTTY
So I assume Dark Tangent won't attend his own con? Jeff Moss sits on the
Homeland Security Advisory Board and is the CSO of ICANN.[1] If that's not
"the man", I don't know what is.

[1] [http://www.dhs.gov/homeland-security-advisory-council-
member...](http://www.dhs.gov/homeland-security-advisory-council-members)

~~~
dfc
I can understand your position with DHS. But CANN is hardly the man. Would you
prefer a world where ICANN is unable to find competent security people because
working for ICANN is some how associated with evil?

~~~
anonymous
Supporting ICANN is hardly working in the name of "good".

Sure, working with ICANN may not be associated with "evil".

However to those in the know, it is associated with greed under the guise of
"service to the public".

Personally, I'd prefer a world where ICANN, namely the centralization and
commercialization of domain names to benefit a select few insiders and an
array of parasitic sleazebags, gave way to a non-antagonistic naming system
harmonized with trademark law and actually run transparently as a public
service, for the public benefit.

~~~
contingencies
_However to those in the know, it is associated with greed under the guise of
"service to the public"._

Don't forget a US-centric internet, far more readily controlled and
manipulated by that state than any other.

~~~
snowwrestler
I have heard exactly zero accusations that ICANN is doing anything to control
or manipulate the Internet for the good of the U.S. None of the recent
revelations about Prism, tapping cables, etc. have anything to do with ICANN.

~~~
marshray
When you hear other countries talking about "US control over the internet"
they're largely talking about ICANN.

But I agree that they're not "The Man" per se. Though I assume they're co-
opted to the core.

------
danielsiders
Entry (since the site is down):

"Feds, we need some time apart. Posted 7.10.13

For over two decades DEF CON has been an open nexus of hacker culture, a place
where seasoned pros, hackers, academics, and feds can meet, share ideas and
party on neutral territory. Our community operates in the spirit of openness,
verified trust, and mutual respect.

When it comes to sharing and socializing with feds, recent revelations have
made many in the community uncomfortable about this relationship. Therefore, I
think it would be best for everyone involved if the feds call a "time-out" and
not attend DEF CON this year.

This will give everybody time to think about how we got here, and what comes
next.

The Dark Tangent"

~~~
codyb
Will this actually affect the feds ability to attend or will they just attend
in plain clothes? Or will they be able to attend as feds and just be looked
down upon?

~~~
throwawayDC21
There is nothing to mark them as feds, payments are in cash and everyone is in
plain clothes. I think this will make very little difference to who attends.

It is also worth mentioning that Black Hat (the two days preceding DEF CON)
has reportedly seen a drop in registrations due to lack of funding for federal
employees to attend (I have no source for this other than industry rumor).
There was a suggestion that some would still attend DEF CON and save on the
registration cost for Black Hat, but many were planning to stay away anyway.

I feel that this is more public relations than anything else, the feds will
still be there but DEF CON can present the image of being underground hackers
fighting "the man". Some of the smartest people that I have met at these sort
of events work for governments around the world, either directly or through
private companies.

The reason the lines have blurred between the two groups over the past decade
is as much to do with money as it is to do with diplomacy or a shared enemy. I
think that this statement goes against one of the core values of DEF CON: that
everyone is welcome, regardless of background or ability.

~~~
corq
A good number of the Feds seem to enjoy self-identifying. Many will still
attend, but the chemistry will definitely be different.

~~~
marshray
My impression was that they enjoy drinking a lot and for many Defcon was the
only time of year they got to go "under cover".

------
typicalrunt
I applaud Jeff's (DarkTangent) stance on this. I've been to 7 Defcons now and
the Feds have always been treated fairly. Even the media has been treated with
respect, so long as they are transparent and honest about being media [1].
Honesty and openness have been betrayed this year with the Snowden leaks, and
I'm glad people are finally taking a stand.

I'm curious other security conventions will take the same stance.

[1] One year a reporter disguised herself as an attendee instead of admitting
she was a reporter, and was attempting to get hackers on record saying that
they've hacked into <this> and <that> important system. She was found out and
summarily chased (literally) out the convention.

~~~
EthanHeilman
I'm extremely impressed with DarkTangent, this must have been a difficult move
for him to make, especially given that the NSA Director(DernZa) was the
keynote speaker at the last defcon. He is probably getting a mountain range of
shit right now from the feds.

" Over the past two decades, hackers at Defcon and the feds have been circling
each other suspiciously. The nation's top "spook" \-- National Security Agency
Director Gen. Keith Alexander -- giving a keynote at the hacker confab, shows
just how much tensions have mellowed."
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57481689-83/nsa-director-
fi...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57481689-83/nsa-director-finally-
greets-defcon-hackers/)

Things don't look so mellow anymore.

~~~
mcantelon
>He is probably getting a mountain range of shit right now from the feds.

I doubt it. It's just PR. Defcon will invite the feds back once everything
blows over, PRISM or not.

~~~
marshray
DT is _famous_ for cultivating controversy for PR. AIUI, in the past Defcon
has orchestrate [big company's] lawyers literally walking on stage to shut
down a vulnerability disclosure talk.

------
mirkules
I'm skeptical. For the past few years that I've been attending, defcon felt at
some times like an instrument for fed recruiting while paying lip service to
its original "underground" feel. DT's message almost felt like posturing to
underline the latter rather than a sincere statement to curtail the former. I
won't pretend that I'm a long time attendee (my first was DC16), so I would
love to hear from some more seasoned attendees if my impression is correct.

Edit: the reason for that impression is that there is no declaration of a
policy in his message (e.g. "feds are prohibited from soliciting employees at
DC21"), rather a soft "time-out". With all due respect to DT, neither we nor
the feds are in the third grade. Contrast this with their strict journalist
policy and recall how that undercover reporter was outed and kicked out/chased
away a few years ago.

~~~
_delirium
You might have felt like that because the original organizer, "Dark Tangent"
aka Jeff Moss, turned state's evidence in 2009. He's been on the federal
payroll ever since.

Here, he's trying to pose as an anti-fed activist while simultaneously drawing
a Department of Homeland Security paycheck.

------
smokeyj
As hackers we have an ethical obligation to refuse service to tyrants and
dictators. Like mercenaries who profiteer off war, we should ostracize those
who act against humanity.

~~~
kpommerenke
Exactly: Stay away from North Korea

------
david_shaw
This is going to be my tenth (?!) year at DEF CON.

The culture of DEF CON, and especially its evolution, is a very interesting
one. When I first attended DEF CON, it was a bunch of seemingly scary hackers.
Fortunately, it turns out most of them were amazing people.

As the conference grew (and changed venues several times), the culture began
to evolve. The barrier to entry--in terms of being "accepted" into the
subculture--lowered significantly. DEF CON stopped being a scary place, with
goons that would "de-tech" you and throw you in the pool, and more of a
mainstream event. For the most part, I'm completely supportive of where DEF
CON's going. I'm _definitely_ supportive of air conditioning in the venue,
instead of standing outside in the sweltering Las Vegas summertime heat.

That said, though, it's not really a "hacker conference" anymore. Not more
than its sister conference, Black Hat, or something like RSA, anyway.

DEF CON used to be about _hacking_. Not in the HN sense, but in the "illegal
entry into networks" definition. Now, it's less about hacking and more about
the actual information security industry; this is probably related to the fact
that everyone I knew at the first DEF CON I attended (myself included)
currently works in the infosec industry.

With growth, exposure, and the inclusion of white hats, DEF CON naturally
became a recruiting ground for federal agencies, including law enforcement,
the military, intelligence, etc. The 'spot the fed' game that began as a joke
(with prizes!) soon seemed silly, since there were so many federal
employees/recruiters/agents.

I'm all for DEF CON entering the mainstream. It's a conference and community
that I've grown to love, and the lessons I've learned there (not to mention
the friends I've made) have helped me immensely--both personally and
professionally. That said, though, there's pretty much zero chance that this
announcement DT made will have any effect whatsoever on federal agents,
recruiters or representatives attending the con. More than anything, it's a
huge publicity stunt.

After all, most of the staff and "old school" attendees work for "the man"
now. For some, like me, it's just hacking for money; many, though, actually
_do_ work for defense and intelligence contractors. Should they be banned
because of their affiliation?

Personally, I don't think so.

PS: If you're considering going to DEF CON and you've never been, you should!
It's a booze-fueled learning, partying and networking event unlike any other.
Plus, you get to hang out in Vegas for a weekend!

~~~
mcantelon
>many, though, actually do work for defense and intelligence contractors.
Should they be banned because of their affiliation?

Absolutely. The hacker community should not contribute to the knowledge of
those who work to undermine privacy and feed the surveillance-industrial
complex.

~~~
javert
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.

~~~
adventured
Not true at all. It entirely depends on _what_ you're building.

Build new tools to protect privacy. Advance encryption technology faster.
Build new communication software to keep the NSA out. The list is practically
infinite and applies to nearly every segment of web / internet / mobile / pc.

~~~
majelix
> Not true at all. It entirely depends on what you're building.

No it doesn't. He's making the same argument terrorists sometimes use to
justify their actions. We're not innocent -- that by paying taxes, voting, and
otherwise being a member of our society, we're culpable for what that society
chooses to do.

You don't get to pick and choose what your taxes fund; in large part, that's
the whole point of taxation.

~~~
PavlovsCat
There's still a difference.

When I am in a room, I contribute to the humidity of that room. Now imagine me
turning on the faucet or boiling some water.... and then saying "I can't turn
them off, it would make no sense, I would contribute to the humidity either
way!".

I'll just go ahead and say if people can't think at all, so that they only
know the difference between "nothing exists" and "everything is the same",
then whatever they're building can't be that good, and chances are great we'd
be better of without it.

~~~
etherael
Sure, there are degrees of contribution, and direct is clearly more
intentioned than indirect, but at the end of the day the beast doesn't care if
it's fed willingly or unwillingly, and the vast majority of government funding
is involuntary. If it's going to die, it needs to be _unable_ to feed, what
people are willing to contribute is irrelevant when its primary income is
violently coerced.

I have thought long and hard about that underlying argument and at the end of
the day I both could not find a flaw with it, and was subsequently compelled
to become a globally nomadic anarcho capitalist, just to avoid being forced to
contribute to what amounts to only a fairly tame by comparison lackey of the
US.

~~~
PavlovsCat
_at the end of the day the beast doesn 't care if it's fed willingly or
unwillingly_

I totally hear what you saying and as a matter of fact, I used to be very
depressed by this. And maybe I'm being a coward. But I also think that
billions of people need to be organized somewhat to live together, even
millions or thousands. We need plumbing, we need roads, hospitals, and even
taxes. To some degree, at least. I mean, come on, even though there are bad
doctors, it's kinda cool that I can just look one up in the yellow pages and
have a great chance of getting competent treatment. Or eat fast food without
dying of salmonella or something. It's not perfect, but I don't want medieval
times back either. Yeah, I'm probably a coward ^^

Still, to me the problem isn't so much that there _is_ government, but that
it's not a mechanism for people to govern themselves, but like something
external we accept to be broken and our enemy, instead of us. That it's a
shitty government, run by people who wanted to get in for all the wrong
reasons - instead of by everyone, all the time. Mr. Taxman [1], who just lies
to you before election and there is fuck all anyone can do.

As Chomsky said, governments have one "defect", they are _theoretically_
democratic -- corporations have no defect, they're pure tyrannies. So unless
you become some kind of super inventor / investor, and so rich that you and
others of your calibre could really move things around, well.. you'd still
have your voice I guess. And that might be enough, there are surely ways to
not pay into the wrong hands and still affect people, so I'm not knocking it
at all. If you can pull it off, good luck! And write a book/blog about it,
too.

[1]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0M__0Z1pjg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0M__0Z1pjg)

~~~
etherael
I'll take a pure tyranny I can choose whether or not to participate in over a
democracy that demands my submission on all collective decisions any day of
the year. I don't even really understand the reasonableness of the
counterpoint to that position I have to admit, people take that position just
come across as faintly unhinged.

------
anonymous
I will attempt to translate Jeff's short message:

In light of recent events, this is not an opportune time for recruiting and so
the feds will not be attending the conference in their usual numbers. However,
they will of course still be monitoring all communcations at the event, so
they will be there in spirit.

------
_delirium
A curious aspect is that the person who wrote this message (Jeff Moss) is
actually a fed himself. Does he plan to exclude himself from the conference?

------
anonymous
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20095649-245/when-
hackers-...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20095649-245/when-hackers-
become-the-man/)

In the early years, DefCon founder Jeff Moss used to say "if you're 20 and
you're working for The Man, you're a loser,"... "Ten years ago, Moss said 'if
you're 30 and you're not working for The Man, you're a loser.' And now he
agreed that at 40 he is The Man.'"

------
ferdo
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it."

-Upton Sinclair

------
mcot2
DefCon is a joke. Nobody with any skill takes that conference seriously.

This is a complete farce as one of the key speakers last year was Gen Keith
Alexander. NSA was fairly open about recruiting directly from DefCon and
DefCon leadership had no problem with it. Anyone with even a slight security
background could have predicted Prism and other programs just by the AT&T
whistleblower from the mid 2000's.

DefCon is just too big, too mainstream for any real technical value. I don't
need to fly to Vegas to watch umpteen panel discussions with crazy EFF people.

~~~
certific
Which conferences do you consider decent for someone with skills?

~~~
mcot2
There are a lot of smaller technical trainings and conferences once you get to
a certain level. I like to rate conferences by the technical quality of what
is being presented. Am I constantly being blown away by new ideas? What can I
use in my own projects to make them better?

At too many defcons I have seen nonsense panel discussions and presentations
by people with little qualifications. Some presentations I have seen have
obviously been created one or two nights beforehand. I've even seen a troll
presentation where slides with walls of text were read word for word in a
monotone voice.

I have no idea who this person is or how old this list is and I have not
attended every one of these conferences but you might take a look at this:

[http://faculty.cs.tamu.edu/guofei/sec_conf_stat.htm](http://faculty.cs.tamu.edu/guofei/sec_conf_stat.htm)

------
ianhawes
My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of Federal employees on
official duty from FBI, DHS, DOD, NSA, etc.. that attend DEFCON (and related
conferences) are actually not agents at all, but rather low ranking analysts
whose job at the conferences are to assess the material presented and report
back. This is opposed to, say, recruiting CIs or surveilling targets.

Source: I asked a Fed.

~~~
cheez
This is more about making a statement than anything else. Will the information
still reach the feds? Sure.

But the request is deliberately creating a delineation: the government is no
longer for the people or part of the people, it exists for it's own sake.

Will the government understand and ramp itself down?

Whatever you thought about Ron Paul, his politics would have prevented all of
this. All of the wars. All the foreign aid. And we would live in paradise ;)

~~~
bittired
> Whatever you thought about Ron Paul, his politics would have prevented all
> of this. All of the wars. All the foreign aid. And we would live in paradise
> ;)

This made me laugh. Considering how much Republicans and Tea Partiers are
ostracized for making cuts, just imagine how much people would come down on a
fiscally conservative basically Libertarian candidate in 2016 (even if he runs
as a Republican).

~~~
msandford
Ostracized by who? People in the media or regular working class folk who pay
plenty but get little?

My parents both work and make money and the only real benefits that they have
gotten as a result of trillions spent on war is that they'll continue to pay
taxes for the rehabilitation of the soldiers whose bodies and lives have been
destroyed.

They MIGHT collect on social security, etc but given that they're still at
least 10 years from retirement, it's certainly nothing they can count on.

~~~
zeckalpha
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Pau...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Social_Security)

~~~
msandford
Okay, I read the link. What's the point you're trying to make?

~~~
zeckalpha
Ron Paul would have gotten rid of the one thing they think the government does
do for them, as well as a number of things they don't notice.

~~~
msandford
Okay, but he also believes that the income tax is unconstitutional. If he's
able to get social security to go away it's likely he'd also eliminate the
income tax. Losing social security AND the income tax would likely be a net
win for middle aged working folk like my parents.

If two people are making a combined $120k/year their tax burden is around
$27k. With 10-15 years to go til retirement that's another $270-$405k in gross
savings, neglecting any ability to earn interest (which right now is
effectively 0%).

I don't know what the social security pay-out rates are these days but $300k
today versus a decreasing probability of future benefit payments from the SSA
seems like a reasonable risk to take, given the choice. Not that we'll ever
have the choice, mind you.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Okay, but he also believes that the income tax is unconstitutional. If he's
> able to get social security to go away it's likely he'd also eliminate the
> income tax.

X wants A. X also wants B. Therefore, if X gets A, X will also get B.

That doesn't work.

> Losing social security AND the income tax would likely be a net win for
> middle aged working folk like my parents.

Your analysis seems to be pretty shallow on this, particularly, it seems
presume that the income tax can go away with everything else operating as is
with no effect except taxpayers not paying the tax.

~~~
msandford
A world where Ron Paul gets elected president and/or gets any of his
legislation passed is a substantially different world than the one we live in
today. Hugely different.

If it were possible for the general population to somehow wake up and realize
that Social Security is a ponzi scheme and that it's not sustainable long term
(not good odds that will happen, mind you) then it's ENTIRELY conceivable that
said people might listen to the "income tax isn't constitutional" argument as
well.

The political landscape would have to be so incredibly different for social
security to go away I can't even really comprehend it. You can speculate that
people wouldn't both abolish social security AND the income tax. I speculate
that such a thing could reasonably happen. We'll never actually find out who's
right.

~~~
dragonwriter
> A world where Ron Paul gets elected president and/or gets any of his
> legislation passed is a substantially different world than the one we live
> in today. Hugely different.

Sure, but the ability to build a minimum winning coalition on eliminating
social security is pretty much irrelevant to finding a minimum winning
coalition on eliminating income tax.

> If it were possible for the general population to somehow wake up and
> realize that Social Security is a ponzi scheme and that it's not sustainable
> long term

Its not possible for them to "wake up and realize" that because its not true,
but its certainly possible for them to be convinced of that; indeed, that's a
fairly common idea (at least, if you take out the "ponzi scheme" part) now.
What is less common is the idea that the best way of dealing with that is to
eliminate the program entirely rather than addressing features that make it
nonsustainable. [1]

> then it's ENTIRELY conceivable that said people might listen to the "income
> tax isn't constitutional" argument as well.

Sure, its entirely _conceivable_ that people might _listen_ to that argument.
That's a bit different saying that it is likely that he would also be able to
eliminate the income tax (there is a big gap between "conceivable" and
"likely" and another big gap between "listen to" and "agree with".)

> The political landscape would have to be so incredibly different for social
> security to go away I can't even really comprehend it.

I have no problem with that description, but that's an argument _against_ any
assertion you might make about what would be likely in that case, not an
argument for it.

> You can speculate that people wouldn't both abolish social security AND the
> income tax.

I could, but I haven't. A statement that your claim that a particular outcome
is likely is not supported by the argument you have presented for it is not a
claim that the outcome is impossible.

> I speculate that such a thing could reasonably happen.

There's a difference between speculating that a thing "could reasonably
happen" and asserting, as you did previously, that it is _likely_.

[1] E.g., [http://www.gallup.com/poll/1693/social-
security.aspx](http://www.gallup.com/poll/1693/social-security.aspx)

~~~
msandford
>> The political landscape would have to be so incredibly different for social
security to go away I can't even really comprehend it. >I have no problem with
that description, but that's an argument against any assertion you might make
about what would be likely in that case, not an argument for it.

You're basically arguing that the status quo is, and always will be, the
predominant way of the world working unless a person can provide direct
evidence to the contrary in a big way. I get that, and it makes a lot of
sense. I generally feel the same way.

What I'm trying to suggest is that the world where social security gets
eliminated is so different that your assertion that the status quo is, doesn't
hold. You'll probably disagree with me on that issue but ultimately there's no
way for us to know either way. It's all speculation. The evidence that I would
give to support such a notion is that when serious political change happens,
it often happens in a big way.

I think it's highly likely that the only way social security could get
eliminated is some kind of a revolution, peaceful or not. Since there are so
many people who currently benefit from social security right now having paid
very little in (they like the program) and plenty of people who paid in their
entire working lives (they desperately want to get their money out of it) that
they constitute a large entrenched interest.

You're saying that the minimum amount of energy to get this 1000 ton rock
moved from point A to point B doesn't imply that the other 1000 ton rock right
next to it would go anywhere at all. I'm suggesting that for a rock that
friggin huge to get moved there's some kind of bigger thing happening like a
landslide, an earthquake, a big explosion, etc and thus, perhaps it might.

~~~
dragonwriter
> You're basically arguing that the status quo is, and always will be, the
> predominant way of the world working unless a person can provide direct
> evidence to the contrary in a big way.

No, I am arguing that arguments of the form "if X occurs, its likely that Y
will also occur" need to be justified by more than "X would take a radically
different world, and Y occuring would be conceivably plausible in such a
radically different world, therefore, it is likely that Y will occur if X
occurs."

> What I'm trying to suggest is that the world where social security gets
> eliminated is so different that your assertion that the status quo is,
> doesn't hold.

I haven't made any such assertion. I have simply argued that you have failed
to provide anything that remotely approaches support for you claim that it is
likely that income tax would be eliminated if social security was eliminated.

> The evidence that I would give to support such a notion is that when serious
> political change happens, it often happens in a big way.

Even granting, _arguendo_ , that point and your belief that social security
takes a "revolution", that's not evidence in support of the likelihood of any
_particular_ currently-unlikely change being made possible by the situation
that enables the elimination of social security.

> Since there are so many people who currently benefit from social security
> right now having paid very little in

The only people who have substantial SS benefits while paying very little in
are the lower-earning surviving spouses of people who paid in and then died,
so I think your premise here is a bit dubious.

> You're saying that the minimum amount of energy to get this 1000 ton rock
> moved from point A to point B doesn't imply that the other 1000 ton rock
> right next to it would go anywhere at all.

No, I'm not. A better analogy would be saying that I am rejecting the claim
that the mere fact that it would take a quite substantial minimum energy to
move the 1000 ton rock from point A to point be justifies a claim of the
specific _path_ a neighboring rock would be likely to take in the event the
first rock was moved from point A to point B.

~~~
msandford
You haven't convinced me that I'm made some highly incorrect giant leap of
faith in logic, and I clearly haven't convinced you that my ideas aren't
outlandish. Thanks anyhow, though. It's taught me to be more specific in my
arguments.

------
jonathanwallace
Try the non-SSL version if you're having trouble accessing the site.
[http://www.defcon.org/#dc21fedbreak](http://www.defcon.org/#dc21fedbreak)

------
rdl
I was assuming Defcon 21 would be down on fed count this year due to 1) the
sequester hurting travel budgets and 2) recent (well, in the past year) high
profile wasting of money in Las Vegas by the GSA.

There's also OHM running in parallel, which will draw off some of the European
attendees (probably not law enforcement/intel, though). If I got to pick
between OHM and PW/BS/BH/DC (all 4 running in Las Vegas that week), I'd
probably pick Ohm.

------
mcantelon
Note the "this year". Defcon is just looking after their branding. If they had
concern for privacy they wouldn't have had the NSA directory keynote last year
and let him lie to their audience.

------
Canada
The feds have all the 0 day and privileged access now. What do they need Def
Con for anyway? Well, I guess they'll miss out on getting drunk.

~~~
dmoy
Recruiting?

~~~
fixxer
God help the poor schmucks left to run that booth this year.

(I've never been; I presume it is like most other conferences and you've got a
slough of bored recruiters staffing info booths?)

~~~
X-Istence
No info booths, they are lucky if they get a table, but even then outright
using it for recruiting is not allowed. Last year they had an Enigma machine
on display.

------
Shank
It seems quite clear to me that Dark Tangent is attempting to stop something
bad from happening at DEF CON. He doesn't want a fight or a brawl breaking
out, or implied threats or negative community interaction. His advice isn't so
much a 'no feds allowed' sign, but more of an open warning that coming as a
Fed might cause undesired tension and circumstances that weren't previously
present in such high volumes.

Calling the situation ironic because DT is a fed is unrelated - he may work
for the government, but he isn't in a position that has a conflict of interest
with a hacker conference (read: he doesn't work for the NSA). If you say "Dark
Tangent" to a person in the security community, people recognize him as the
creator of a hacker conference; not a government employee.

------
microb
Keith Alexander, Director of the NSA spoke at DEFCON last year to a standing-
room-only audience. Every year "the feds" have a presence at DEFCON.

~~~
iuguy
And he's the Keynote speaker at Blackhat the week before.

------
guiambros
It's important to remember that DEF CON is not _banning_ the feds, but instead
asking them to _not participate_ this year. There's a big difference here. The
former is mandatory, unilateral; the other is an invite to pause and
reconsider the relationship.

Now I'm curious on how government agencies will respond. They may go anyway --
and have to deal with a very unwelcoming mood, or respect the request and give
some space for the sec community to discuss the case more openly.

I, for one, fully support DT's request, and really hope the feds understand
that the problem is not _who_ they are or _what_ they represent, but their
tactics and methods recently exposed.

They can't expect to be welcomed anywhere, given the obvious abuses that are
happening against U.S. Citizens (and everyone else, for the matter), under the
excuse of "war on terrorism".

------
rawrly
Defcon is cancelled.

~~~
merlincorey
Just confirmed on IRC, Defcon is cancelled.

~~~
X-Istence
Just got this confirmed through an anonymous source at DEF CON, it has indeed
been canceled. With feds no longer being welcome there simply would not be
enough money made from ticket sales to pay the costs for the venue.

~~~
throwawayDC21
Come on guys, you know we don't cancel DEF CON until the badge line reaches
200 people.

------
femto
Did anyone else look at the defcon21 logo and see a hand giving "the finger"?
("def" are the fingers, 21 is the palm, the top of the d is an extended
finger)

------
adaml_623
Is it possible that this post is a message to many who work for the government
to evaluate what they are doing and decide whether they are comfortable with
what their job involves. After all there's a huge spectrum of possible actions
between whistle-blowing and unthinkingly following procedures. And you can
work for change from within... perhaps.

------
kGrange
I don't think this is about "taking a stand." As has been pointed out, Dark
Tangent is himself working for the Feds.

> recent revelations have made many in the community uncomfortable about this
> relationship.

They just don't want to deal with fed vs. non-fed tensions at the con. Maybe
they're afraid fights would break out.

------
Selfcommit
HN effect on the site?

~~~
dominicgs
There were issues yesterday too:
[https://twitter.com/_defcon_/status/354873376675868674](https://twitter.com/_defcon_/status/354873376675868674)

------
GigabyteCoin
If the feds can get air traffic controllers in other countries around the
world to down the Bolivian President's jet... I don't think they'd have any
trouble getting into DefCon if they really wanted to.

------
GoldfishCRM
Smart move. Then people not feds has to come in order to prove they are not
feds.

------
maqr
Does a "time-out" mean that they're discouraged from attending or that they
won't be issued badges?

~~~
britta
They are politely discouraged from attending. I imagine that a person who says
"I'm a fed" while buying a badge would not be issued one, but Defcon has no
way to avoid issuing badges to feds who don't disclose their status.

~~~
fixxer
Hmm... forgive my ignorance, but do they have the right to not issue a badge
to anyone based on occupation? Sounds like discrimination. Hope they don't
sue. ;)

~~~
nknighthb
Defcon is not a government entity, it has freedom of association rights, and
law enforcement officers are not a suspect classification.

~~~
sigzero
It could probably be considered public though and therefore freedom of
association wouldn't apply.

~~~
nknighthb
Freedom of association always applies, the only question is whether government
can and has overridden it.

For "has", neither Congress nor Nevada has attempted to make discrimination
based on employer illegal, in a place of public accommodation or otherwise.
There can be no illegal discrimination when there is no relevant law, making
the case moot from its inception.

And even if they had attempted such (that is, we move to the "can" analysis),
we know from the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Hurley that it's
difficult to do even where there is an entanglement of public and private
interests, the harm to the private interests is extremely attenuated, and the
excluded group is arguably quasi-suspect.

------
gavinlynch
Is half the Security industry just attending conferences? Seriously.

------
exgeocitiesuser
interseting times we live in

