
A Message to 2600 Readers and Writers - erickhill
https://www.2600.com/content/message-2600-readers-and-writers
======
thraway2016
Truly incredible.

The infosec community baffles me, when it comes to politics. I'm no fan of
Trump, but the unfounded and apoplectic reactions from the likes of Matt
Blaze, Swift on Security, the grugq, Jon Zdziarski, halvarflake, netik,
kragen, etc, are batshit crazy.

There is absolutely no evidence that a Trump administration poses any threat
at all to infosec, and by many measures represents a _better_ option than the
alternative.

Trump's former opponent is on record clamoring for a "Manhattan Project style"
effort to undermine crypto, and 2600's readership is concerned with the man
whose worst security-related gaffe is a vague suggestion about "[calling] up
Bill Gates".

I really don't understand these nominally rational people, when it comes to
politics.

~~~
AnOscelot
It's not batshit crazy. It's the responsible response.

Trump's said plenty of disturbing things. Both in his political run and in his
30+ years in the public eye. He's erratic, petty, prone to seeking revenge,
and extremely thin-skinned. Americans should have never given this guy power,
but they did.

The most responsible thing 2600 et al could do is warn people and be prepared
for the worst. If the worst happens, people need to be prepared already and
not taking panicked steps at the last minute. History is full of examples of
people thinking the incoming leader didn't mean all the awful things he said.
It's best to believe what the leader has said and take appropriate action.

There's a chance of looking crazy if Trump ends up not being as bad as his
words indicate, but that's a chance worth taking considering the harsh and
very possible alternatives.

~~~
wahern
It's not responsible at all.

Flipping out about the nomination of Wilbur Ross, for example, as Secretary of
Commerce detracts from the weight of legitimate arguments against many of
Trump's other picks.

To many journalists' credit the reaction quickly quieted down once his record
and character become more clear, but first impressions are sticky. Now
journalists and pundits, especially liberal-leaning pundits, will find it that
much more difficult to constructively criticize Ross or other officials in the
future given that it's established that they wrongfully flipped out in at
least one significant case.

You make fewer of those mistakes when you stick to concrete facts and concrete
policy points. And it goes without saying your arguments will be all the more
sound for it.

Yes, Trump's rhetoric is anxiety inducing, and there's plenty about his track
record, including as president-elect, that evidences he's willing and capable
to follow through on much of it. But there's also evidence he won't follow
through on some of it. If he doesn't then he can claim people were crying
wolf. He probably will do this strategically. Certainly his rhetoric is
strategic.

Unfortunately we won't be able to get off this roller coaster for at least 4
years. But that doesn't give everybody carte blanche to start screaming their
heads off right out the gate.

Look, plenty of other countries have had to deal with, and are dealing with,
demagogues. We know how to do deal with it. Keep your heads on straight and
stay vigilant.

Anyhow, if people are right about Trump, there'll be plenty of opportunity for
[more] outrage. If there's not, then all the better.

~~~
AnOscelot
> But there's also evidence he won't follow through on some of it.

I hope you're right, but I really don't understand this view. You look at the
terrible leaders throughout history, and you'll find they more often than not
advertised what they were going to do and who they were going to be.

I'd much rather be prepared than just assume Trump is a troll. I'd rather see
an implacable opposition ready to go on day 1. If Trump ends up being a simply
bad president, in the conventional way presidents are bad and not a Russian
puppet or kleptocrat or autocrat, then people like me might look a little
silly. But that's a small price for being prepared if things turn out very
differently.

~~~
wahern
It's not a question about being silly. It's a question about retaining the
legitimacy to persuade people in the middle, people that are currently nominal
Trump supporters.

What should scare you the most isn't Trump; it should be the credulity of the
electorate, its tolerance of his rhetoric, and its faith in his vague
promises. Trump's rhetoric has only _softened_ over the course of the past
year. Not too long ago he was literally criticizing John McCain for being
captured.

People in dictatorial regimes didn't get there by being quiet. They never
were. Even today in places like Venezuela and Russia people take to the
streets. They got there by losing a channel of communication to their fellow
citizens.

It's no coincidence that Trump's rhetoric is typically vague and non-specific.
The whole Muslim registry thing, for example, was vague enough that many
people could rationalize it away; that's even easier now that Trump has come
out against it.

People are just going to waste their bullets by shooting at poorly defined,
moving targets. And when you finally get something lined up in your sites and
have a good shot, nobody is going to notice. Trump clearly enjoys tweaking the
opposition this way, he understands that his audience enjoys it. Trump
understands how and when to hold and distract their attention--it's second
nature to him because he thrives on that attention.

All the Republican nomination competitors made the same mistake... and lost.
Hillary Clinton made the same mistake... and lost. Pointing out the obvious
flaws in his policies, the impossibility of his promises, and his rejection of
core American ideals DID NOT WORK! The moment those tactics find any purchase,
he changes his tune accordingly.

Too many people _want_ to believe; too many people are reveling in a sense of
rebellion, insensitive to consequences. The only way to get through to them is
to give them a front-row seat to each and every policy failure, along with an
accompanying narrative that squarely lays the blame at his feet.

In the interstitial time between consequential events, people (especially
journalists) should just focus on maintaining transparency, so that the record
cannot be easily denied. Doing that requires not providing fodder that allows
the administration to sow uncertainty and doubt about opposition criticisms.

If people keep reacting to every aspect of Trump's rhetoric, there won't be
anybody in the audience left. They'll have all gone home, either secure in
their faith in Trump's promises or given over to apathy. Just like people are
in Venezuela, Russia, and elsewhere.

It's not about standing up to Trump. This is a democracy. The only way to win
is by persuading his supporters, especially when it's this early in the game
and Trump and his growing band of sycophants haven't secured much
institutional power.

~~~
silpol
(quote) "People in dictatorial regimes didn't get there by being quiet. They
never were. Even today in places like Venezuela and Russia people take to the
streets. They got there by losing a channel of communication to their fellow
citizens." \-- you are clearly out of sync with reality about Russia. Since
2011 protests, Russian regime jails people even at "single person protest"
which are always legal by their law, leave alone cases like Bolotnaya. NGOs
are pushed into fed-by-govt-or-illegal mode. Political opponents either went
into govt-is-right mode or expelled. Mind you, it is not dictatorial, it is
only authoritarian. But it is toxic enough. And we haven't even started yet
about DT going to hug with Putin asap once he is in chair. Did I mention that
almost whole Republican party is in love Putin's image and strong arm
behavior? Thank you but your ideas are out of sync with reality.

~~~
wahern
And yet by every measure Putin remains incredibly popular, even when measured
by foreign, non-biased organizations. Just as was Hugo Chavez.

So how are my ideas out of sync with reality? The only thing out-of-sync with
reality is doubling-down on the same strategies that lost over the past two
years of intense political campaigning.

Policies do not make the candidate. Ultimately, voters elect a person, not a
set of abstract policies. Policies _should_ make the candidate, and we
_should_ endeavor to nurture a culture where policies matter.

But, alas, in the current environment somebody like Trump is thriving. Like
Putin, he thrives _despite_ the fact that clear (though distinct) majorities
reject almost every one of his concrete policies. (The exception being
national defense, where more is always better and voters don't care much about
the details.) And he'll likely follow Putin's pattern--openly promise one
thing, do something else when nobody is looking, then deflect criticism using
traditional propaganda techniques--promises were "just rhetoric", implemented
policies are "misconstrued" and "ill-informed", and... look, squirrel!

Given the cult of personality (Trump the star, Trump the vehicle for rejecting
the established order), the way to win is diminish support for the
personality. You do that not by attacking policies directly, but by attacking
policies in such a way that they expose the personality as a fraud. Those are
truly two different things. The latter isn't focused on the rightness or
wrongness of policy (always a debatable point), but rather in showing that
Trump doesn't actually have voters' interests at heart; you show that Trump is
a poor vehicle for reform.

------
hn_user2
The ominous title and the fact that I couldn't actually read the article
scared me a bit. I kind of assumed some bad news about them shutting down.

I have not subscribed in quite some many years. And I can't remember the last
volume that I read. And yet. I was suddenly sad and ready support them
financially.

I think 2600 has been a good influence. I hope they always stick around.

Note: the message has nothing to do with them going anywhere.

~~~
jandrese
I was never a subscriber, but I picked up a fair number of issues from the
bookstore. It was a little annoying how often they would post an article from
someone who clearly had no idea what he was talking about. Sifting through the
bullshit to find the nuggets is a tiring job.

It's also one of the periodicals that I am absolutely amazed is still printed
on dead trees. I would have expected them to be one of the first to go all
digital.

~~~
ourmandave
Given the audience, there'd be a race to see who could upload a copy on the
Pirate Bay first.

Also I thought they'd shut down once Kevin Mitnick was free.

~~~
jandrese
They aren't already scanned and put up on torrent sites? That would be a big
surprise to me.

------
scolson
It is timing out for me already, so here is the google cache text-only
version:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PL_BKoM...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PL_BKoMHcgIJ:https://www.2600.com/content/message-2600-readers-
and-writers&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

------
josh_carterPDX
There is so much anxiety around the incoming president. Even friends of mine
in the GSA who handle anything around energy efficiency with different
government agencies are changing their titles for fear of losing their jobs
since the incoming administration is clearly in the position of denying
climate change is even a thing. I know this post focused on infosec, but the
overall tone strikes at the anxiousness being felt throughout the entire
ecosystem. I'm a proud 2600 subscriber and very glad the staff is taking a
stand publicly.

------
strictnein
> "We've received requests from both readers and writers to erase all evidence
> of their existence in our correspondence and to cancel their subscriptions
> and remove their names from our database"

Weird. My level of concern: I buy every copy with a credit card at Barnes &
Noble.

~~~
freehunter
Right? I work for a major tech company and can get a subscription delivered to
the office if I wanted to, paid for by my employer.

I feel like a lot of independent hackers (as well as government officials)
don't realize that hacking and info sec in general can be (and currently is) a
completely acceptable enterprise occupation. If hackers were being rounded up
and sent to jail, I can count at least 4,000 people at my company who would be
missing Monday morning. And that's just the number of people connected to my
Slack team, which is not mandatory to join.

------
anw
Web-site is down. This is what it said:

"Since November, we have witnessed a variety of reactions to the surprising
political developments in our country. We expect nothing less and welcome the
thoughts, opinions, ideas, and schemes that our readers and writers put forth.
There is one disturbing perspective, though, that we need to address.

A number of people in our community feel that hackers in particular will be
under increased scrutiny and will be facing significant threats under a Trump
administration. We've received requests from both readers and writers to erase
all evidence of their existence in our correspondence and to cancel their
subscriptions and remove their names from our database. On more than one
occasion, all hacker-related clothing was also thrown in the trash.

It's this reaction that we find more disturbing than any of the many potential
threats we're facing. Why? Because bad things happen when people let them. As
long as we stand united and are willing to fight back against anything that
would threaten us as individuals or as a community, we have what it takes to
prevent such threats from taking hold. If we yield, it's handing out a blank
check.

Yes, there is much to be concerned about and even to fear. Hackers, as always,
seem to be right in the middle of the controversial news stories bombarding us
every day. But we need to embrace this, not push it away. We have always
protected the confidentiality of both our subscribers and those sources who
contribute material to our publication. We will never stop doing this.

There is great strength in numbers and in intelligence. We need both in order
to survive what may be hugely challenging times. We cannot let the specter of
oppression slow us down because if such a scenario were to come true, that is
when we would be needed the most. We should have more articles than ever, edgy
and controversial material that we embrace, and a ton of people who aren't
afraid to read and collect what we're putting out. After all, it's in the
darkest hours when a bright light makes the most difference.

We are changing the terms for writers of printed pieces, beginning with the
Winter 2016-2017 issue due out in early January. Instead of a choice between a
year of our magazine or one of our t-shirts, we are now offering both of these
items for every article printed. And as for what articles we're looking for,
as always we want pieces that embrace the hacker spirit, that examine and
dissect technology in ways others haven't, and/or that reveal inconvenient
truths about services and products that those in charge really don't want
people to know about. Bombshells and leaks of all types are great and, as
mentioned, we always protect our sources. And, being a printed magazine, it's
a lot harder to block or filter us from any part of the globe.

You can send your article contributions to articles@2600.com or by surface or
air mail to 2600 Editorial Department, PO Box 99, Middle Island, NY 11953 USA.

We are but one window into a world of amazing voices. Please support others as
well as us. If our speech and communication are to be seen as a threat to any
regime, it's far better that there be a huge number of us than a tiny number.
There will be some tests ahead and probably some hard times. We can't think of
a better group to face that with."

------
at-fates-hands
W O W

I have a LOT of friends who went through all the government growing pains when
they were trying to enact laws to try and curb hacking. The feds were putting
people away for 20+ years and weren't screwing around when they went after
hackers. And what happened? We all banded together, formed underground
communities, shared ideas on how to evade the government, and created tools to
do so, some of which are still in use to this very day.

The fact that people seem overtly paranoid about a Trump presidency is so
overblown. I mean, some of the toughest sentences that have been handed down
to hackers were done under both a republican president and a democratic
president (Clinton and Bush) and to a large degree the FBI is (or should be) a
non political entity.

I can't believe this people have also forgotten about the fight for proper
encryption, how we are rallying to get the CFAA laws changed as well as the
progress that Snowden has brought this country in terms of the governments
overreach with regards to spying on its citizens.

I see and hear a lot of this and just shake my head. Hackers have _always_
been at war with the government in some shape or form. Just because we have a
new president should not deter people from continuing the fight.

Depressing to hear this. . . .

~~~
angersock
Probably because the "hacker" population you are referring to has gotten
diluted with posers and the sort of people who easily give in to mass
hysteria.

------
johnnycarcin
It's very sad that people feel this way, no matter if it justified or not. I
feel like this presidential election has had more groups than usual come out
and talk about similar feelings and/or actions. Is this a byproduct of new
(accurate or not) being much more available compared to previous elections? In
other words, did stuff like this happen before and we just never heard about
it or is it really happening more this time around?

~~~
anigbrowl
I've lived on the internet since 92 and have always taken an intense interest
in politics, so that's 6 presidential elections and 5 midterms (and multiple
elections in various Euro countries I've lived in). I'd say there's a
significant qualitative difference between this and any previous political
turning I've experienced.

------
fosco
text only [0] version works for now...

wish they were more active...

[0]
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PL_BKoM...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PL_BKoMHcgIJ:https://www.2600.com/content/message-2600-readers-
and-writers&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

------
fapjacks
Many years ago, I sustained my subscription to 2600 by writing articles. Lots
of fun nostalgia in those pages.

