Researchers Now Pulling Out of DEF CON In Response To Anti-Fed Position 204
darthcamaro writes "Earlier today it, Slashdot had a story about DEF CON's position on not allowing U.S. Federal agents to attend the annual hacking conference. We're now starting to see the backlash from the hacker community itself with at least two well respected hackers pulling out of the DEF CON speaking sessions so far: "'The issue we are struggling with, and the basis of our decision, is that we feel strongly that DEF CON has always presented a neutral ground that encouraged open communication among the community, despite the industry background and diversity of motives to attend,' security researcher Kevin Johnson wrote. 'We believe the exclusion of the "feds" this year does the exact opposite at a critical time.'"
Meanwhile, Black Hat welcomes Federal attendees; this year's conference will feature as a speaker former NSA head Keith Alexander.
Good luck (Score:2, Insightful)
Door, arse, etc.
no security is better than a false sense... not (Score:2)
Neutral vs. naive (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one thing to be neutral towards those who are vaguely threatening, but it's simply naive to be neutral towards those who are actively undermining you.
Re: (Score:1)
It's one thing to be neutral towards those who are vaguely threatening, but it's simply naive to be neutral towards those who are actively undermining you.
Uh, couldn't the law enforcement and intelligence communities have said that every year about a lot of hackers at DEF CON?
Re: (Score:2)
However, "Feds" covers a lot of ground. The spying is from the NSA. What about the FBI who have legitimate interest in cyber security as well as information to give?
Re:Neutral vs. naive (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the DEFCON organizers expect that /no/ government officials will make an appearance. Rather, they are making a statement that - because of recent revelations - they will no longer be offering an open hand to those officials. Furthermore, it might be unsafe (electronically, not physically) for agents to openly make an appearance because they will be more of a target for malicious hacking than usual.
It's more along the lines of "We don't like what you are doing and therefore aren't being as welcoming to - and thus in complicit agreement with - you or your goals. Also, if you do come it's on your own head if bad things happen because you've managed to piss off all our other guests and many will consider you /persona non grata/ and take it upon themselves to make those feelings clear."
Government agents will be at this year's DEFCon; it's just that they will be even less likely to announce their affiliation than usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, were you reading the same thing I was?
That got the slashdot headline "DEF CON Advises Feds Not To Attend Conference", which got translated to "not allowing U.S. Federal agents to attend".
That's a hell of a lot of drift. Your final
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really non obvious?
Government official paints Hackers as dangerous in the public eye, cites Feds may want to stay away from the uncontrollable trouble makers attending Defcon.
Distracts threat of global surveillance state by pointing at a few computer nerds who can hack your Facebook until some bug is patched.
Film at 11.
Protip. Jeff Moss is a government agent. [techcrunch.com] His past deeds mean nothing. They know where he and his loved ones live.
Re: (Score:3)
It's naive to think that banning feds will keep them away.
I don't believe the point is to keep them away. I think the point is to publically send them a message. It's a political statement more than an effective way to ban anyone.
This sort of thing happens (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't speak for the people who have chosen not to participate or their reasons for doing so.
I am sure it will be a loss for the event, but not as much as the one that comes from the lack of a public dialogue about the government's actions and activities tracking internet traffic.
Saying that Defcon fosters an open community where there are no sides is a little misleading. The government has it's own reasons for showing up and they are not all related to sharing ideas, learning and having a good time. It's just the other people who really lack an agenda.
I know people who are not going to Blackhat because the NSA is giving the keynote. What kind of strange alternate future is it we live in where this even happens?
Re: (Score:2)
it's only fitting that NSA is giving keynote at Blackhat since they're the biggest blackhat hacking organization around... source: everyone outside USA.
Re: (Score:2)
I know people who are not going to Blackhat because the NSA is giving the keynote
Those people are dumb. If they are worth noticing the NSA has probably noticed them already. Meanwhile this gives the opportunity to see NSA PR being flacked firsthand, and compare it to what we now know they are doing. It will provide a valuable rosetta stone for future communications from the NSA so that we have a good idea of the scope of their actual operations based on what claims they make.
So two feds excuse themselves from attendance? (Score:1)
>> "we feel strongly that DEF CON has always presented a neutral ground that encouraged open communication among the community,"
Whoever thinks the feds will at any time play fair is a fool. Those who actively violate the rights of the people should not be welcome anywhere.
Nobody "Excluded" Anybody (Score:5, Informative)
There's a pretty damned big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like they could really enforce a "ban" on feds anyway. Any jackass with $100 can get a badge if they want to stand in line long enough, and not every "legit" hacker has tattoos, piercings and a techno fetish, otherwise 'spot the fed' wouldn't be any fun anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
"Asking these people not to show up under these circumstances is absurd. It only makes them more interesting in attending. Racking up arrests and filing charges is how these people show their bosses that they are doing their jobs. That can be done by finding criminals and it can also be done by making criminals."
Yeah, but at the same time, their "suggestions" carry some weight. Certain DefCon folks have pwned the Feds more than once... when they had far less reason to do it.
BFD (Score:1)
I wouldn't be at all surprised if these two were contractors for the fed.
They can get bent if this is their attitude toward willful violation of my civil rights. I'm not interested in the opinions of people who lend ANY support to the ingrates who knowingly and willfully violate our rights for a day job.
Um wording. (Score:2)
Safety issue! (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly think there's a significant aspect to the move to "ban" Feds that people are overlooking: safety and liability. DEFCON gets a bit rowdy at the best of time, in the current climate re: PRISM, Snowden, etc. I seriously think the move will save a few bloody noses, possibly broken bones, and likely lawsuits and criminal charges stemming from the same. The conference also shields itself from the associated liability. A lot of people, especially in the hacker/DEFCON community, are *seriously* pissed at the US gov't right now, and that's gonna cause a lot more friction than normal.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, the non Fed attendees can't be trusted to act like adults, so the con is warning the Feds not to attend. That really engenders trust in the hacker community. Good move!
Re: (Score:3)
Even worse, it would be reported as hackers acting like 12-year-old jackasses thus tarring every "hacker" as a 12-year-old immature idiot. Or a great way to prejudice anyone caught "hacking".
Like Schwartz or Snowden.
Re:Safety issue! I think not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you have not spent much time at these gatherings, but the amount of crossover between the them and the bone breakers is rather limited. It is more likely that additional mean spirited T-shirts will be created AND displayed.
It Just Occurred to me (Score:2)
It just occurred to me, one of the researchers pulling out was slated to give a presentation on how to hack sharepoint.
While it would be an enormous loss for the community not to have the opportunity to learn more about the specific ways this guy attacks M$'s premium CMS ... ... how much effort would it really take for a bunch of Defcon attendees to put together a session with equally useful information about hacking sharepoint to replace it?
Ask them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Media badges are already present and required; sneaking by without one is grounds for scathing public humiliation and a (possibly literal, physical) boot out the nearest door.
"Fed" badges are unlikely to go anywhere, though. The reason that the media badges are meaningful is because they are something you can track; by their very nature, media personalities (even just faceless authors in a magazine) are people whose jobs are public. The feds... not so much. They are people whose job invites and often requir
Not the obvious motivation? (Score:2)
Kevin Johnson's reasoning is very suspect (Score:5, Interesting)
We do not want to make this a "political" move, and we do not make this decision based on their motivations. The issue we are struggling with, and the basis of our decision, is that we feel strongly that DEF CON has always presented a neutral ground that encouraged open communication among the community, despite the industry background and diversity of motives to attend. We believe the exclusion of the "feds" this year does the exact opposite at a critical time.
James and I do not feel that this should be about anti/pro government, but rather a continuation of openness that this event has always encouraged. We both have much respect for DEF CON and the entire organization and security community.
The specific inclusion of the federal government was never the intent of DefCon. The intent was to provide a neutral ground for people working in the security industry or on the fringes of the industry to be able to come together and discuss ideas, problems, and solutions. The Feds began coming, not to participate in the DefCon community but hoping to catch hackers or to recruit them. Obviously there may be some federal employees who attend for the same reasons we do, but DefCon prizes anonymity and those who would legitimately be attending obviously could not and would not be excluded.
For your team to purposely pull your talk from DefCon because they have asked that the feds not attend this year is absolutely silly. If your purpose is openness and community, it seems rather fishy that the organizers simply asking that the 'Feds' don't attend (i.e. the guys trying to track hackers) would incite you to pull your talk. I think it is completely disingenuous to say that this is not a political move because the community will still be there - you just aren't targeting the community anymore with your talks and your target audience may not be present...at least that's the way you make it seem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sequestration exists, I didn't bring politics into the discussion, you did. I just pointed out that it's gonna impact the attendance of feds at ALL cons, including DEFCON, until it gets sorted.
As far as student loan rates, and tuition rates while we're at it, fuck you. I have TWO in college right now, so am acutely aware of the pain.
No, I didn't cry about it, I'm just gonna shoulder the load and get on with life. Let me know when you've been paying taxes fo
et tu? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how you find out who's snitching to the feds.
I can well understand why anyone in the non-corporate, civilian security community would have absolutely lost any shred of trust they had in the feds.
Those guys in DEFCON know who Aaron Schwartz is. They probably know people like Edward Snowden. They know that the federal government could bring their whole world crashing down in a heartbeat, without anything like constitutional rights.
I bet there are some feds who are sad about missing the parties, and about missing all the intel. But seriously, if any of them were decent people, they'd be blowing whistles, too.
Anybody who's working for the federal government in cybersecurity needs to make a decision about their future. Are they OK with being part of a police state? I know jobs are scarce, but if the day ever comes where push comes to shove, understanding of why they chose to continue to be part of this American StaziTM is going to be even more scarce.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the real reason they backed out is because no one was going to their talk anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The only ones who backed out of the conference (as far as I can tell) were going to talk about hacking Sharepoint. While I'm sure that's useful in some situations, it sounds like an extremely boring talk.
And kinda entry-level. I'm just generalizing here, but based on my own interactions with SharePoint, I strongly suspect that nobody ever sat around, racking their brains about how to hack a SharePoint site.
This is a non issue. (Score:2)
give back the name! (Score:4, Interesting)
The people making up DEF CON hijacked the term "hacker" for their security-related work. Give it back to the people who actually deserve it: smart, clever engineering types.
Spot the fed! (Score:2)
I claim the first "Spot the fed" siting. i.e. Kevin Johnson
Enjoy your security contracts. Your grandchildren will thank you for the police state you helped create.
For their own protection... (Score:2)
Anyone consider DEFCON just might not want the hassle of an official government presence b/c of the trouble it might stir up with attendees???
Jeez, if any of you dorks ever threw a party, you'd know the big variable is who will show up and what they will do.
Having an **official** presence from these gov't IT types would definitely tax security...just look at the comments on this thread. If I was organizing this, I definitely consider the same, given that it's a...you know...'hacker' convention and all.
It's
Re: (Score:1)
Were it not for the fact I don't believe there is any anonymity in the world anymore, I would agree with you and say something even more cavalier. But I don't, and like to be thought of as a nice person.
Re:Fuck 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there is. They call them "Analysts".
Re:Fuck 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
If these researchers want to take the wrong side in this fight, let them.
Why does everything always have to be a "them against us" when it comes to these types of debates. I am in no way affiliated to any government organization, and I definitely do not like government intrusion in my private life. However, government security is as much in my interest as in theirs. Afterall, if they do legally obtain some of my private information for whatever reason, I'd sleep a lot better knowing that at least it will be safe from some 12 year old Chinese hacker.
Or perhaps it will take an asteroid hurdling towards Earth for you to side with "the feds" and work together on a solution?
Re:Fuck 'em (Score:5, Interesting)
Or perhaps it will take an asteroid hurdling towards Earth for you to side with "the feds" and work together on a solution?
It is rather difficult to trust a group of people with a long history of lies, abuses, manipulation, and little or no accountability. This is one of those hard facts that doesn't just go away. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to restore broken trust, especially when it has been repeatedly broken with little or no consequence to the perpetrators.
Right now our government doesn't seem interested in regaining the trust and confidence of the citizens. They'd rather watch every move and outright spy on the people, becoming more and more intrusive, in order to justify this paranoia of theirs that more of their misdeeds might become known. It never seems to occur to them to look in the mirror if they want to find the source of the problem. They don't seem to think that maybe, just maybe, actual respect for the lives, privacy, and freedom of the citizens they're supposed to be serving is a better solution.
If some doomsday asteroid were coming our way, these people would likely retreat to some kind of well-stocked underground "continuity of government" bunker than lift a finger to help us.
Re: (Score:1)
As any person who has been married for any significant length of time can tell you:
Yes, it can be difficult. It can also be worthwhile.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So can solitude.
But I like roads, bridges, and military protection.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
military protection.
yeah, we are always being attacked by actual armies by other countries ON OUR OWN LAND.
yup, happens so much, we need to keep arming our military more and more.
"I feel so safe"
(barf!)
but hey, those who have military and defense related jobs are surely enjoying this and the last decade. the rest of us have to deal with poor roads, rotting infrastructure, lack of money for proper education and the general enrichment of society via improvements we 'cannot afford' due to military spending.
bu
Re: (Score:2)
OK. So let's just dismember the standing army, and see if anything happens.
I'm game for the experiment.
Are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Red herring. You don't need a government "with a long history of lies, abuses, manipulation, and little or no accountability" in order to have roads, bridges, and military protection. Switzerland for example seems to do just fine with their government; you never hear about Orwellian surveillance programs from the Swiss government, and they have very nice roads and bridges there. There's dozens of other countries that do just fine with their governments too, such as Norway.
Re: Fuck 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
this is starting to tread onto the batshit insane territory now! seriously? make your own roads? make your own bridges using "basic geometry and a few wood/metal shop classes"? and lets not even get started about the military protection that you think only consists of guns and "a few home-rigged explosives"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fuck 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
It is rather difficult to trust a group of people with a long history of lies, abuses, manipulation, and little or no accountability.
That also explains why I don't trust much coming out of the "hacker" community, either. :)
See what happens when you make sweeping generalizations about a community based on the wrongdoings of some members of that community?
Re:Fuck 'em (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet last year everyone who attended DEF CON already knew the NSA was spying, they just didn't have any proof of it. There were ok with having feds last year though. So the only thing that really changed is that this spying is now front page news.
Re:Fuck 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know why suddenly it's become such a big issue when it wasn't before. Maybe everyone was distracted by gay marriage or abortion or banks or spying on the press or something. The number of scandals going on is rather ridiculous.
I'd still rather have it be a big issue than not.
Re: (Score:3)
There was proof even before. About the only thing that was revealed by Snowden was the exact names of the companies that were helping the NSA (and a few more similar details). I don't know why suddenly it's become such a big issue when it wasn't before. Maybe everyone was distracted by gay marriage or abortion or banks or spying on the press or something. The number of scandals going on is rather ridiculous. I'd still rather have it be a big issue than not.
It's a big issue now because mainstream, average people either didn't know about it, or were in denial about it and preferred to ignore those who tried to bring this to their attention. Or they branded them with labels like "tin-foil hatter" or "conspiracy nut" and the like. It's the standard procedure for how small-minded people treat those who have clearer vision than themselves (they can't just disagree, or be skeptical, they have to denigrate).
Now they can't do that anymore so it's finally getting
Re: (Score:2)
Now they can't do that anymore so it's finally getting the attention it deserves.
I don't think that's it, because the evidence was extremely clear before [wikipedia.org]. Maybe people believed Obama wouldn't do the evil things Bush did? It seems like the 2009 inauguration was about the time people stopped mentioning it. Maybe now, after Snowden, it's impossible to believe that Obama ever intended to do anything about it?
Re: (Score:2)
What about the following hypothetical chat in the white house:
POTUS: We gotta sort this out, this dragnet thing is unacceptable. ...
NSAOfficial: Of course, Mr President, I completely agree. On a completely unrelated note, would you care to take a look at this, rather thick, folder - obviously we would have to declassify it should we find a viable way to proceed with this route. Our analysts have market the sections you might find most interesting with post it notes.
POTUS:
Re: (Score:2)
There was proof even before.
What proof?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Here's one example [wired.com]. There was a leaker in 2005, too, who was also charged with espionage. Remember Thomas Drake? [wired.com].
I certainly don't, and I had been paying attention back then. In 8 years we probably won't remember Snowden's name either. The US populace is even less well informed (or willfully ignorant), so you can bet that around 2020 there will be another leaker telling us shocking things about how the NSA has a running log of everybody's Google Glass feed.
Re: (Score:2)
Those seem to be allegations of targeted surveillance without a warrant. Blanket surveillance is in a whole different league IMO. Not the same thing at all. Blanket surveillance crosses the line from routine unwarranted privacy invasions and fishing expeditions by individual LEOs and 1984.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone actually believe them though? That's the problem with lying. It tends to make people trust you less. The NSA has about as much credibility as the TSA. Professional liars.
Re: (Score:2)
But even if that's true, and they haven't hurt anybody, and are totally benign, eventually this program WILL be abused, and they will cause real damage. So let's get rid of the program
Re: (Score:2)
They don't seem to think that maybe, just maybe, actual respect for the lives, privacy, and freedom of the citizens they're supposed to be serving is a better solution.
Perhaps you define better different than they do? IE: Unchecked Power and Unlimited Funds. Tell me citizen, what powers may you grant us, that we may not take our selves? What benefit can you give us, that turning knowledge into stock can not?
Re: (Score:2)
It is rather difficult to trust a group of people with a long history of lies, abuses, manipulation, and little or no accountability. This is one of those hard facts that doesn't just go away. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to restore broken trust, especially when it has been repeatedly broken with little or no consequence to the perpetrators.
So the thing to do is to boot all gov't employees? I think there is a fallacy here, that 100% of feds are working on surveillance technology. NSA implemented SELinux - what if those types of security researchers want to go? Just screw 'em?
Re: (Score:2)
It is rather difficult to trust a group of people with a long history of lies, abuses, manipulation, and little or no accountability. This is one of those hard facts that doesn't just go away. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to restore broken trust, especially when it has been repeatedly broken with little or no consequence to the perpetrators.
So the thing to do is to boot all gov't employees? I think there is a fallacy here, that 100% of feds are working on surveillance technology. NSA implemented SELinux - what if those types of security researchers want to go? Just screw 'em?
I'm curious how you read what I wrote and think that is what I am suggesting. I double-checked and I just can't find anyplace where I said we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The problem, as I identified it, is that this government does not seem interested in re-establishing mutual trust between itself and the citizenry. If it were interested in that, it could start by increasing transparency and accountability. If it *really* wanted to do that, it could reduce its own size and power (yeah
Re: (Score:2)
this government does not seem interested in re-establishing mutual trust between itself and the citizenry.
they know they are unbeatable (powerful) and so, they are filled with hubris.
why SHOULD they give in? those that have that kind of power never willingly give it up.
plus, they have spent years conditioning the everyday joe sixpack that this is all for THEIR safety and benefit. and you know, roughly half the country believes that bullshit, hook line and sinker.
we don't have an educated country, generall
Re: (Score:2)
"Trust no one." --Fox Mulder. Humans sin so you can't trust them 100%. :(
Re:Fuck 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd sleep a lot better knowing that at least it will be safe from some 12 year old Chinese hacker.
It's not a 12 y/o Chinese hacker that most US citizens need to fear. It is the unrestrained overreaching of the US government as they push aside our privacy, our rights, our Constitution and our history.
Re:Fuck 'em (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason its us against them is because they have repeatedly broken the law, in spirit if not in fact, by their current activities. The only possible reason for them to be doing so is to gather more and more power to those who enable them. The purpose of such power is always to control, to enforce their will upon those who would otherwise prefer to live a life of freedom instead of a life of enslavement.
Those concepts aside, it becomes more of an us against them atmosphere when hackers, people who skirt legalities to do what they do in a lot of circumstances, are in the same room with law enforcement who are known to be gathering information on ALL communications in the US. Keep in mind that those communications may be discussing illegal activities whose purpose is to research weaknesses in security methods. While this could technically be illegal their purpose is to educate and repair problems - and the unfortunate wording and enforcement of the law makes their activities illegal. So bearing all of that in mind, the NSA walks into the room and starts getting names of people in attendance, then goes back and digs into PRISM and finds what those people are doing. And then, ultimately, either uses it for their own agenda or passes the information on to someone who will.
is that really in the best interest of anyone who wants to retain not only their freedom but their civil liberties?
Just like misusing antibiotics (Score:2)
the NSA walks into the room and starts getting names of people in attendance, then goes back and digs into PRISM and finds what those people are doing. And then, ultimately, either uses it for their own agenda or passes the information on to someone who will. is that really in the best interest of anyone who wants to retain not only their freedom but their civil liberties?
It's certainly not in the NSA's interest. The hackers they catch this way would not be the best and the brightest. It would also tip off the best and brightest that the NSA is doing something underhanded like this. That would cause them to strengthen their defenses and anonymity.
It's like misusing antibiotics; if you don't get all of them, the remaining ones will only become stronger.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd trust a random 12 year-old Chinese hacker before I'd trust an organization that's currently torturing and keeping people locked up illegally.
This is what's known as a false dichotomy. We at your local Federal Government will be here for you to trust mere moments after you have trusted the Cheenager.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you apologists always so desperately want the US to be compared to the greatest shits on the planet?
But if you insist: When compared to the reign of Idi Amin, Pol Pot or Hitler, the US government isn't the worst offender.
Happy now?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you apologists always so desperately want the US to be compared to the greatest shits on the planet?
But if you insist: When compared to the reign of Idi Amin, Pol Pot or Hitler, the US government isn't the worst offender.
Happy now?
To be fair, the USA is only 240-something years old, so buck up, we can yet be #1, we just have to believe in ourselves and various bogeymen.
Re: (Score:2)
If these researchers want to take the wrong side in this fight, let them.
Why does everything always have to be a "them against us" when it comes to these types of debates. I am in no way affiliated to any government organization, and I definitely do not like government intrusion in my private life. However, government security is as much in my interest as in theirs. Afterall, if they do legally obtain some of my private information for whatever reason, I'd sleep a lot better knowing that at least it will be safe from some 12 year old Chinese hacker.
Your logic, if we can call it that, escapes me. There's no reason that the government AND some twelve year-old Chinese hacker can't BOTH have copies of your information. Anyway, where'd you get the notion that your information was obtained legally?
Perhaps it's legal by the distorted forms of of reasoning the Feds use to justify their acts, but not by the common sense ways most people would understand the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I work together with the feds all the time. I pay taxes, I follow the law, I obey legitimate instructions by officials, police officers and the military. It takes massive hardship for me, or other individuals, not to work 'with' the state. The question is what does it take to make the state work with me, and frankly I doubt an asteroid would do it!
Re: (Score:2)
Because people like simple solutions to complex problems, which they can then pretend that they've dealt with.
Do you want Kool-Aid with that?
Re:Fuck 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
It's time the entire populace stand up and tell the federal government to go fuck itself.
Polls show that most people think Snowden was a criminal, and that the NSA is keeping us safe. Excluding and isolating your opponents is often a good strategy when you are winning. But privacy advocates are not winning. They are losing. In this battle for hearts and minds, engagement may be a better strategy.
If these researchers want to take the wrong side in this fight, let them.
They are not taking a side. They are disagreeing on means, not ends.
Re: Fuck 'em (Score:1)
Hahahahahahahahaha. You must be checking those government polls...
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahahahahahahaha. You must be checking those government polls...
If the polls are wrong, where's the outrage? Most of the taxpaying, voting citizens in my little slice of the world agree with those polls. They've never heard of /. and would think Reddit is the same thing as 4chan, except they've never heard of them, either. The cold, hard truth is the vast, silent majority of Americans are apathetic about personal privacy.
They're not apathetic, they're cynical (Score:2)
The cold, hard truth is the vast, silent majority of Americans are apathetic about personal privacy.
From what I can tell (discussing this issue with my non-technically-minded family members), they're not apathetic, they're cynical. The best response was from my mom -- "if they know everything about everybody, why can't they stop these damn telemarketers from calling me?"
Re: (Score:2)
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD [whitehouse.gov] and the ones like it
Re: (Score:2)
The cold, hard truth is the vast, silent majority of Americans are apathetic about personal privacy.
Actually, the cold hard truth is that the vast majority of Americans are idiots, and you are included.
I didn't say they were right, or that I agreed with them in the slightest. Just that they don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say they were right, or that I agreed with them in the slightest. Just that they don't care.
But they DO care.
And claiming otherwise is either the action of a fool or a stooge. ...
Maybe you are being paid to make the erroneous claims you have made
Yeah, you got me. I've been a paid government shill here on /. for more well over a decade. I don't know why I even bother replying to ACs.
Re: (Score:2)
But they DO care.
No, the majority doesn't care. Even those that think Snowden was a hero, aren't doing anything about it. Is a single politician going to lose an election over this issue? I don't think so. This is a dead issue. It has been pushed off the front pages by Kim Kardashian's new baby. It's a girl!!!
Re: (Score:3)
don't care?
The vast majority of Americans likely don't understand what legal repurcussions and violations are being propagated against them in the name of 'fighting terrorism' and 'security'.
The truly sad part is they end up supporting it out of social pressure, lest they be thought of by their peers as I patriotic. It's a self-fulfilling cycle of idiocy.
Completely agree with this, except I don't think there's a lot of social pressure. I think they are mostly just happy not to think about it too much. It's terrifying to think how little a splash something like Watergate would have today.
Re: (Score:3)
Polls show that most people think Snowden was a criminal, and that the NSA is keeping us safe.
It's all too easy to manipulate polling results. There are plenty of subtle ways of doing it. I would rather think something like that is going on and apply all the usual "qui bono?" scrutiny to who conducted the polls and who paid for it and what the methodology was. I would rather think that because if so many Americans really are that naive, then the nation is forfeit and it's only a matter of time before it becomes a totalitarian state of some kind.
Re: (Score:3)
Q-Poll: "Do you regard Edward Snowden -- the national security consultant who released information to the media about the phone scanning program -- as more of a traitor, or more of a whistle-blower?" 34% say traitor, 55% say whistleblower, 11% unsure (6/28-7/8)
ABC Poll: "T
Re: (Score:2)
Polls show that most people think Snowden was a criminal
No they don't, they show that a majority of the people who have an opinion now think that what he did was wrong (earlier, the majority supported him). However, almost 30% of respondents had no opinion. Apathy is killing this country, no one gives a shit about their rights until they experience a very direct and negative impact on themselves personally. Even if people think the government is spying on them, almost a third don't give a shit until they have to deal with actual consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
almost a third don't give a shit until they have to deal with actual consequences
That's because they don't appreciate just how predictable and inevitable those consequences really are.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because of two, connected things. The first is that most privacy advocates sound and act like raving paranoid nutjobs (and for the most part they are). The second is that this has lead them to scream "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" so many times that nobody listens to them anymore.
The there is a third thing, one the nutjobs don't grasp and don't seem to even realize the existence of: most people don't care. Nor have have the n
Re: (Score:3)
Because the first step in solving any dilemma is to grab the nearest sharp knife and cut off our noses despite our faces.
Re: (Score:2)
'Fuck you' (Score:2)
As of this writing, this comment was moderated 'insightful'...
I know we aren't supposed to comment on moderation but Parent is pure flamebait. The whole concept is a trolling concept...'blame government' is half a point and one way to start a never-ending argument.
I HATE these never ending arguments about straw man aspects or red herrings...I downmod these type of comments when I have mod points and I encourage others to do the same. I know we're supposed to focu
Re: (Score:2)
well they're obviously feds or fed financed, so they're pulling out - or were there just in hopes to get fed financed.
Re: (Score:3)
I see, so you don't believe in the National Transportation and Safety Board...them are the guys that keep airline, train, bus, and auto companies from cutting corners to keep your ass safe. Now, about the Social Security Administration, let's get rid of them because Grandma can come and live with you, right? You have no need for safe workplace, there goes OSHA. And your air and water have no business being clean, let's get rid of the EPA. The list is very long....
Your problem is that you have no sense of pe
Re: (Score:2)
... Wow. I never actually thought about that song's lyrics before. Now I feel like an idiot. If it wasn't actually written about a whistleblower, it may as well have been. That's a very good description of how working a government job, and deciding you don't like what your employer is doing, goes down (for people who take a less extreme approach than Snowden or Manning).