Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fate of a speaker

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ndex
    replied
    Freedom of Speech versus Sedition

    We live in dangerous times.

    I disagree that we should keep poitics out of Defcon but agree that Defcon is not a political event. Raising money for EFF with the dunk tank could be construed as a "political" activity but the thousands of people who attend Defcon have a spectrum of political and religious values that were not represented by this speakers comments.

    There is a *profound* difference between saying:

    I believe <ideology> for these reasons

    and

    I believe violence is appropriate based on <ideology>

    If it is true that the speaker's statements were miscommunicated to imply that he advocated violence against civilians, then he was extremely foolish and way out of line. By making statements, which I did not witness, allegedly of a seditious nature he endangered the entire event and the privacy of all the participants.

    The law is painfully clear about the distinction between inciting violence (hate speech) and freedom of speech. Some of us older folks remember the early 80's when there was serious talk of using the sedition laws (which are STILL on the books from the 50's!!) to justify the violation of the privacy of Americans. This is a very serious issue. The existing sedition laws, when taken together with the Patriot Act provide unparalleled latitude to the government to violate our civil rights.

    This speaker is effectively drawing fire and endangering us all with his rhetorical incompetance.

    I believe this speaker was completely out of line and I'm thankful that priest clarified the position of the Defcon organization on the subject. In my opinion, the speaker should be asked to post a written retraction and apologize for his failure to utilize the common sense God gave the turnip when framing his talk.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noid
    Not sure where you folks are getting this from. His asshatery will be archived for all to see unless the speaker himself asks us not to.

    I would think defcon.org could make an exception in this case. I don't believe that defcon.org is under any obligation to publish this speakers poorly framed, ill-advised and badly articulated sentiments.
    Last edited by ndex; August 4, 2004, 09:30.

    Leave a comment:


  • gzzah
    replied
    Originally posted by icer
    I am suprised you remember anything after the 3 humperdink shots and the massive amount of dunking.
    One word: videotape.

    Leave a comment:


  • y6y6y6
    replied
    And, FWIW, Priest did say the tape was getting pulled out of the archive.

    Leave a comment:


  • y6y6y6
    replied
    Originally posted by Deviant Ollam
    i am a bit upset to hear that this talk wouldn't be included in the media archives or anything.
    Having attended the talk in question, I can assure you it's not worth watching, other than for it's train wreck factor. The speaker literally had nothing useful to say. In a talk about using the Internet to leverage civil disobedience he failed to mention his website or how he was using it. All of the techniques he did mention were basic stalking and harassing.

    In a time where EFF and Dean are using the Internet as a powerful organizing tool, the kid's idea of flooding email boxes and defacing websites were particularly quaint and naive.

    It's telling that he started the talk saying he expected to get arrested, but then he couldn't even manage that. If you're an anarchist and the FBI couldn't care less, it might be time to find a day job.

    Leave a comment:


  • tprophet
    replied
    5H took a different, and interesting approach with the political talks. I disagree with the notion of "keep politics out of Defcon." The underground is, after all, inextricably tied to politics. Politicians regularly pass bad laws that threaten us with jail terms for reverse-engineering and similar activities that annoy powerful corporations (and their campaign contributions). Ignoring this trend is unwise for those who value either intellectual or physical freedom!

    At 5H, political talks were assigned their own track. If you attended these talks, you went into it knowing that the speaker had a political agenda. A wide variety of perspectives were represented, although being Emmanuel's con, most of the talks had a leftist bent (even so, I don't think any of the talks were anywhere near as lame as CrimetheInc's).

    *TP

    Originally posted by bean
    Well, I think there are aspects to hacking that are political by nature (in the sense that the topic of hacking brings up political topics like the DMCA and the Patriot Act), but yeah, talks that are purely political and have very little (if anything) to do with hacking shouldn't have any place at Defcon. I'm glad Priest made that distinction, even if it did mean we had to wait to see Dan Kaminsky talk.

    Leave a comment:


  • bean
    replied
    Originally posted by noid
    Not sure where you folks are getting this from. His asshatery will be archived for all to see unless the speaker himself asks us not to.
    Hmm. Okay. I thought I heard Priest say something about an intent to strip it from the archive when he spoke about it afterward, but I may have been lost in some sort of alcoholic haze exacerbated by the heat at the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • noid
    replied
    Originally posted by Deviant Ollam
    that said, i am a bit upset to hear that this talk wouldn't be included in the media archives or anything. i'm a huge opponent of deleting information or pushing stuff under the rug because someone was a fool. i say let it be seen, let it stand up to scrutiny, and let others talk amongst themselves about where the speaker went wrong and why violent action isn't productive.

    just my $0.02
    Not sure where you folks are getting this from. His asshatery will be archived for all to see unless the speaker himself asks us not to.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCotMan
    replied
    Originally posted by Deviant Ollam
    i side with polyhazard when it comes to disagreeing with the notion that politics have no place at DefCon. some of the MOST rewarding talks for me have been very politically relevant... EFF and Simple Nomad (particularly "Widdershins" at DC9) come to mind.

    i feel that criticism of one's own government and one's own society is among the most healthy acts a person can engage in, if it's done intelligently and without hysteria or ignorance. of course, from seeing what i did of the talk this speaker clearly crossed the line into asshat territory which is a shame to see.

    that said, i am a bit upset to hear that this talk wouldn't be included in the media archives or anything. i'm a huge opponent of deleting information or pushing stuff under the rug because someone was a fool. i say let it be seen, let it stand up to scrutiny, and let others talk amongst themselves about where the speaker went wrong and why violent action isn't productive.

    just my $0.02
    When politics create fragmentation in an already marginalized sub-culture, there is risk for a halting to information sharing and an increase to further dissention within our ranks. Technical and rational thought is replaced with zealotry, political spin and something more like dogma.

    Drop politics, and people with dissimilar beliefs will more willingly share information.

    Addition of politics risks fragmentation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deviant Ollam
    replied
    i side with polyhazard when it comes to disagreeing with the notion that politics have no place at DefCon. some of the MOST rewarding talks for me have been very politically relevant... EFF and Simple Nomad (particularly "Widdershins" at DC9) come to mind.

    i feel that criticism of one's own government and one's own society is among the most healthy acts a person can engage in, if it's done intelligently and without hysteria or ignorance. of course, from seeing what i did of the talk this speaker clearly crossed the line into asshat territory which is a shame to see.

    that said, i am a bit upset to hear that this talk wouldn't be included in the media archives or anything. i'm a huge opponent of deleting information or pushing stuff under the rug because someone was a fool. i say let it be seen, let it stand up to scrutiny, and let others talk amongst themselves about where the speaker went wrong and why violent action isn't productive.

    just my $0.02

    Leave a comment:


  • icer
    replied
    I am suprised you remember anything after the 3 humperdink shots and the massive amount of dunking.

    Leave a comment:


  • Effugas
    replied
    Regarding Priest's Interjection

    Heh guys, this is Dan Kaminsky...thought I'd take a second to shed some light on what went on from my perspective.

    So, as a speaker, you end up going into the ready room about forty five minutes before your talk. If something was going to go down during that time in the general con -- there's no way I'd know. And I didn't -- all I knew was that Priest had a message to deliver, and since he's basically the head goon and one of the oldest school supporters of Defcon, he gets alot of deference.

    Once it turned into a conversation with the audience, I started getting really, really uncomfortable. Not because I didn't agree with Priest's right to talk, or that I wouldn't otherwise enjoy a thoughtful dialog on the false dichotomy of diplomacy vs. war, but -- why here? Why now?

    I had no idea some nineteen year old kid out to impress his girlfriend had just seemingly threatened the lives of thousands of feds at a conference filled with thousands of feds. I had no clue that Priest, and the entire rest of the Defcon press squad, was in the midst of a hectic but ultimately stunningly successful session of damage control. And I don't think the AV guys knew either -- thus the mike getting cut off a couple times. Certainly, Priest is the man to give the benefit of the doubt -- but at the point where he had ranted for five minutes, and was asking for another five, I...wasn't happy.

    A couple people have given Defcon a bit of heat for "censoring" this guy. Look. The DC staff probably saved this kid from having a serious criminal record for the rest of his life, and managing his safety despite temporary stupidity -- even at the expense of a bit of my talk -- is sort of the whole point of the Goons. Their diligence is why we still have a con to party, learn, and hack at after twelve years of running something "underground" enough for Spot The Fed to be an official event.

    Anyway, this has gone on longer than planned. Just remember that if you see weird things like this happening -- you're at Defcon, it's weird that anything's happening at all :-)

    --Dan

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackOrchid
    replied
    I would have to agree with the statement made by polyhazard, " ... disagree that ... politics have no place at Defcon because of the serious consequences for technology and its enthusiasts that the political process can have." However, I think for clarity we can agree to address the political issues which directly affects the electronic without endorsing a candidate or party. The fact is, politics do affect our way of life in almost every venue of being. Right down to the kid who thought his freedom of speech was being violated is a political issue-dealing with the first amendment of the constitution.

    1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    I posted that amendment primarily because it supports the argument that this speaker did not consider his audience. And the fact is, CONGRESS did not enact a law abridging anyone's freedom of speech. This is a private group having a public meeting under their rules of engagement. They have a right to set rules of conduct and speech. In as much as this is a private group running a public forum, they have rules of conduct and speech.

    In the opposing corner: There are anti-authority people who believe in violent protest, stalking, harassing,..etc. This radicalism which was experienced opened a lot of eyes and I was reminded of one thing... People like this are why we have government infiltrating in, by and with electronics. IF we don't sway people away from such radical behavior, we will only be aiding in the promotion of new laws and control methods. So all isn't lost by this lecture.. we were reminded of:

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
    Bo

    Leave a comment:


  • rjsquirrel
    replied
    Just want to coroborate polyhazard's take on the events. This is pretty much what I saw as well.

    It seemed to me the kid was getting unsettled by the largely neutral/negative response he was getting. If the audience had been filled with like-minded radicals/leftists/anarchists/whatever-the-hell-he-considers-himself, he probably would have done better. Instead, he seemed shaken by the fact that his more political statements weren't getting a positive response, and were in fact alienating a good part of his audience. It's at that point that he started into his more radical ideas.

    I think Priest stepped to the podium for two purposes: to distance Defcon from the political content and illegal actions recommended in the talk, and to send the kid a message to cool it a little. The second part didn't work. Right after giving a halfhearted "yeah, right", he started talking about having the names of delegates, their cell phone numbers, where they're staying, what shows they're going to.... It was after he started detailing how to identify and disable convention busses that the talk got closed down. It was no longer about "hacktivism" at that point, unless you consider prank calls "hacking".

    I was too far away to hear details of the exchange afterwards, just some raised voices and a few heated words, followed by some goons hustling the kid out. He looked pissed, they looked concerned. I believe they prevented him from getting his face modified.

    I was sorely disappointed by the talk. I hoped to hear about ways to use hacking as a political tool, to get your message across, much as the sit-ins and protests were used in my younger days. He alluded to this a little in the beginning, but quickly switched to his "fuck up their shit" theme. Anyone can do that. He was unfocused, ill prepared, amaturish, and filled with self importance (his opening comment of "I'll probably be arrested right after this" was a dead giveaway). If this is the face of political activism these days, I weep for the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • polyhazard
    replied
    Okay, as someone who was present at this talk and who saw what took place imediately afterward I would like to toss my two cents into the gears of the rumor mill before it really gets cranking.

    First off, I was exited about this talk because the convergence of technology and activism has been a passion of mine for quite some time. Which made it all that much worse for me when the thing actually took place. I would like to disagree with the statement that politics have no place at Defcon because of the serious consequences for technology and its enthusiasts that the political process can have. I also think that the use of technology can have political consequeces as well. I try not to compartmentalize the two. By "politics" I don't speak of the "Left" or "Right" but of actions and reactions in the public discourse.

    This guy's talk, however, was disappointing at best and infuriating at worst. I don't know that I have ever seen anyone talk for so long and have so little to say. The abridged version: "Fight The Power."

    To be fair, he probably didn't give the talk he meant to because of the increasing tension in the room. But the fact is he made a serious mistake in public speaking: he didn't speak for his audience. What he was saying may have been recieved well in his local anarchist collective, but aside from the common interest in tech that brings folks to Defcon, this is a diverse group, with diverse political philoshophies. To get up and rail against the tyranny of capitalism to an audience in which most people are employed in the industry and quite happy with that system (while maybe aknowledging some flaws) is to lose them on anything else you might have to say.

    At one point the kid did digress to "fucking shit up" and made references to explosives, and a Goon asked him (quite calmly) to keep references to violence down and to make the standard discalimer that Defcon does not condone violence.

    Any reasonable person could have and would have done so. But because this kid was somehow adverse to ANY authority whatsoever, he complained that his freedom of speech was being violated, "What about Democracy?" and then got sarcastic and snarky toward the Goon. (I believe he said "Yes Ma'am" and rolled his eyes.)

    By this point the audience was already tense and that just made it worse. The talk ended at that point.

    As for the rumor that the kid was assaulted, not so. After the talk plenty of people wanted to speak to him and came up to the stage. One argument got tense, and while no hits were thrown, security decided it was best to remove both parties from the room.

    As for the final fate of the kid, I don't believe he was ejected from the Con because I saw him later that day, but have a feeling he may have removed himself shortly afterward.

    I know my 2 cents has quickly become about $1.60, but I really wanted to explain what I saw before the rumors got going. I don't want Priest or any Goons to get any shit for this because I thought the situation was handled extrordinarily well. He was not removed because he was being silenced by facsists (true Python moment "Help, I'm being oppressed!") he was removed for his own safety. And I was glad it was over.

    -P

    Leave a comment:


  • gzzah
    replied
    Damn, shouldn't have changed the channel. Started watching the talk and was totally unimpressed with the two "too cool for skewl" teenagers that I switched to another talk. Caught the tail end of Priest-rant where it seemed Dan was getting a little annoyed at him -- now I know why.

    Politics can always be talked about in an open forum and is indeed talked during DC (privacy rights, DMCA, eVoting, RIAA and MPAA, etc). It's divisive political issues that typically should be left out.

    People always remember the bad things more than the good. Hopefully the other political messages that were given during the Con (e-voting in particular) will become more on the radar scope and the children trying to impress other children will be left behind.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X