The Madigan Incident

[mouseling]

Re: The Madigan Incident

From what I understand, she was offered press credentials 3 times and refused them.

I have only one concern about how we handled the incident. Right now I'm at Usenix Security and whenever someone sees me the only thing they are asking about it the "Reporter Incident". Many of them find it funny, but are also a bit appalled at the undercurrent of violence.
Up until we reached the doors, the whole thing was pretty funny, but when she was being chased to her car, she really began to be afraid that she was going to be hurt.
It made us look like a bunch of thugs. Which we most definitely are not. We may be neanderthals and still evolving, but we are most definitely not thugs.
Also, as one of the panel on boomstick foo, I feel compelled to tell everyone that 'Fear of personal harm' is *the* legal reason for shooting someone.

If this ever happens again, let's have a policy of escorting them out of the building and then standing at the doors making rude gestures and unprintable comments.

-mouse

[Zuggy]

Re: The Madigan Incident

Up until we reached the doors, the whole thing was pretty funny, but when she was being chased to her car, she really began to be afraid that she was going to be hurt.
It made us look like a bunch of thugs. Which we most definitely are not. We may be neanderthals and still evolving, but we are most definitely not thugs.

What seems ironic about this is that she got the same treatment that Dateline and most other major news shows of this kind conduct when they expose someone for whatever reason. They chase them down with a camera crew until they reach a mode of transportation that is faster then foot.

Not that I'm saying that we should stoop to their level, but maybe having someone exposed as a fraud and treated the same way as they treat others will make at least dateline rethink their journalistic strategy. Doubtful but I can hope.

And for reference DT said they offered her a press badge 4 times and that she's welcome back if she gets a press badge.

[Vyrus]

Re: The Madigan Incident

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/customiz...37;20157505352

lol?

[HighWiz]

Re: The Madigan Incident

From what I understand, she was offered press credentials 3 times and refused them.

I have only one concern about how we handled the incident. Right now I'm at Usenix Security and whenever someone sees me the only thing they are asking about it the "Reporter Incident". Many of them find it funny, but are also a bit appalled at the undercurrent of violence.
Up until we reached the doors, the whole thing was pretty funny, but when she was being chased to her car, she really began to be afraid that she was going to be hurt.
It made us look like a bunch of thugs. Which we most definitely are not. We may be neanderthals and still evolving, but we are most definitely not thugs.
Also, as one of the panel on boomstick foo, I feel compelled to tell everyone that 'Fear of personal harm' is *the* legal reason for shooting someone.

If this ever happens again, let's have a policy of escorting them out of the building and then standing at the doors making rude gestures and unprintable comments.

-mouse

I have to whole heartily disagree with you. Perhaps you and or the persons you were speaking to didn't actually watch the video or get the full story. As Zuggy already stated, the following of her was exactly what they do on Dateline... Maybe you're saying what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, and if that's the case, I call bullshit.

Furthermore, who the fuck cares what a bunch of Usenix folks think. If they were there (at DefCon) or did some due diligence in understanding the story they would have never been "appalled" by what happened.

The only Neanderthals I see are the people who make erroneous statements and claims like the ones you just did.

Moreover the problem with your "Personal Harm" statement is that while she was indeed followed with cameras and heckled, at no time outside of the Riv was she accosted. Unlike you, I'm actually quite impressed with the level of restraint that was shown by staff and attendee's, none of the actions they took could be described as that of thugs.

So honestly, your statements and those of your colleagues (read: fucktards) have no basis in fact. Also your lethal force argument has very little grounds in reality.

Just some info from Nevada's Statues on "Stalking" [These are the exception to Stalking Laws (to counter the "Lethal Force argument")]:


(e) "Without lawful authority" includes acts which are initiated or continued without the victim's consent. The term does not include acts which are otherwise protected or authorized by constitutional or statutory law, regulation or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, including, but not limited to:

(1) Picketing which occurs during a strike, work stoppage or any other labor dispute.

(2) The activities of a reporter, photographer, cameraman or other person while gathering information for communication to the public if that person is employed or engaged by or has contracted with a newspaper, periodical, press association or radio or television station and is acting solely within that professional capacity.

(3) The activities of a person that are carried out in the normal course of his lawful employment.

(4) Any activities carried out in the exercise of the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech and assembly.

[skroo]

Re: The Madigan Incident

Yeah, I am sorry you didn't make it, and also sorry that the shout-out to you on the last page was improperly spelled. "scroou" instead of "skroo" or "skrooyou" etc.

Heh, no worries, not a big deal :) Sounds like this was a good year, too. Oh well. There's always DC16...

I say bullshit to any claims that there is no ethical ground for "hackers" (either definition) to cry foul when someone is *caught* breaking rules or laws. If hackers (either definition) face penalties when they are caught breaking rules, then why shouldn't other's face penalties when breaking rules too?

Exactly. And a large part of the issue here is the arrogance that this woman (and, by extension, the production company she was representing) displayed by acting as though she was above those rules. Granted, this isn't the first time Dateline has manipulated their subject to suit their 'conclusions' - remember the incident involving GMC pick-up trucks in the early '90s with supposedly-unsafe fuel tanks that were so touchy they'd explode if someone opened a door into them in a parking lot? Dateline had rigged the vehicles they filmed with explosives to better illustrate their point. And this is only the start of a nearly 20-year history of them throwing objectivity and integrity out the window in the interests of sensationalism.

Similarly, had she simply been outed on stage, smiled sheepishly, and walked off, the entire thing would've been a very tiny blip on the Defcon radar. Storming out to her car in front of a room full of people, however, only served to make people more interested in what was going to happen next. Another bad behavioural call on her part. If anything, it should speak to the character of the community that all she had to endure on that particular trek was being invasively recorded (something she's done to God-only-knows how many people herself) and some fairly mild jibes from the group behind her. More:

I have only one concern about how we handled the incident. Right now I'm at Usenix Security and whenever someone sees me the only thing they are asking about it the "Reporter Incident". Many of them find it funny, but are also a bit appalled at the undercurrent of violence.

I would invite them to re-watch the video. Judging from her expressions and actions, she's embarrassed rather than threatened, even laughing quietly at a couple of the comments thrown her way.

It made us look like a bunch of thugs.

Disagreed. I've been talking with a few of my coworkers who've seen the video and read the reporting regarding the incident; they have no connection with Defcon, so are likely a lot more impartial on this than any of us are. General consensus: a) Lima Oscar Lima Zulu; b) she was clearly not under any more threat than her film crew has placed other members of the public under in similar confrontations; and c) serves the broad right and hopefully she likes the way the shoe fits now.

Also, as one of the panel on boomstick foo, I feel compelled to tell everyone that 'Fear of personal harm' is *the* legal reason for shooting someone.

It may be a legal reason, but is highly-dependent on circumstances and locale. Having said that, this is a tangent we really shouldn't be heading down since it's outside the scope of this thread. In any event, video evidence still shows someone who may feel the need to leave the vicinity given the amount of embarassment she's just publicly brought upon herself, not a fleeing victim trying to avoid personal harm.

One other thing I'm fairly certain of in all of this, however: they chose Defcon because they expected it to be a non-confrontational environment if they were caught - I mean, how could a bunch of computer nerds with pocket protectors and Coke-bottle glasses possibly be able to handle THE AWESOME POWER OF THE MEDIA? As an example, note her arrogance in openly sweeping crowds with her hidden camera. This was an attempt at provoking a confrontation, plain and simple, and most people don't provoke confrontations they don't think they can win. She fucked up in overestimating what she could get away with, plain and simple. Wrong target, and now she's hopefully filing for unemployment as a result.

If this ever happens again, let's have a policy of escorting them out of the building and then standing at the doors making rude gestures and unprintable comments.

Actually, I thought those who were following her were pretty civil about it - nobody threatened her, made any sexual innuendo, or attempted to stop her from leaving. In fact, if anyone impeded her egress, it was Madigan herself when she failed to figure out which direction in the parking lot lead to 'out'.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: The Madigan Incident

i think mouse's comments (and HighWiz's reaction to them with his typical abrasive candor, hehe) show quite clearly the various ways in which men and women (particularly women who are small in stature, as both this reporter and our hacker buddy are) interpret "confrontational" situations and react to them.

what guys interpret as simply walking together in a group can be sometimes thought of as a threatening situation to a lone female. most guys (myself included) would think that's just a bit silly, but the fact remains that if you place certain people in those situations it may take a lot of self-control for them to resist breaking into a run or at least whipping out a can of mace and holding it at the ready.

while i think that a second look at the video shows the crowd to be very calm, walking slowly, and hurling nothing but the occasional joke or insult... the one thing it doesn't show clearly are the locations of any goons who were part of this situation.

i wasn't present and can't comment firsthand, but if the goons whom DT asked to escort her out stopped once they reached the door, that would be the only thing i could raise an eyebrow about. a couple red shirts escorting her to her car (whether she wanted it or not) would have been the most proper thing, i believe, just from a CYA standpoint.

like i say, however, i wasn't there so this may be, in fact, what happened. does anyone know if any red badge folk were part of the group that walked out with her?

SUGGESTION... can we make this thread a Q&A conversation where rumors are put to bed and the facts are all set straight by those in the know?

1. the offer of press credentials... i heard it was made four times total, twice on the phone (was this directly with her or just with NBC?) and twice in person (during reg? afterwards? from whom, etc?)

2. the reporter's actions... i heard she did camera sweeps of the crowds in various places, including the CTF room which is the biggest no-no from a press standpoint. is this correct?

3. the reporter's questions... does anyone know what exactly she was asking folk? some people say she was asking what sort of crimes they commit/have committed. others say she was asking if hackers would work for feds or if feds would hire hackers.

4. the hidden camera... i heard she was dumb enough to ask some person (possibly as she was registering or getting settled in) where the nearest bathroom was "because i need to setup my camera" ... was she really this dumb?

i'm sure there are other rumors and questions people have... as much as we'd all appreciate "i heard that, too" comments, what we could really use most is reputable testimony from people who were actually there when things happened and can speak firsthand (or can reliably quote a recognized source... someone describing what Priest said in a meeting naturally would have more weight than what you think you heard in between someone's cigarette drags on a skybox balcony at 3:00 AM)

[mouseling]

Re: The Madigan Incident

Let me respond to each of your points.

[<QUOTE=HighWiz;89090]I have to whole heartily disagree with you. Perhaps you and or the persons you were speaking to didn't actually watch the video or get the full story.>

Hey, I was there. I found the whole thing great fun, and share the anger at Madigan's attempt to betray us all. But the comments I'm hearing from people who watched the video is that they found the initial chase funny and the end in the parking lot quite disturbing.


<As Zuggy already stated, the following of her was exactly what they do on Dateline... Maybe you're saying what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, and if that's the case, I call bullshit. >

True. The same treatment should apply across the board, but we don't have to sink to their level. But towards the end, she was afraid. Very afraid. Watch the video. Putting someone in fear of bodily harm is considered Assault!

<Furthermore, who the fuck cares what a bunch of Usenix folks think. If they were there (at DefCon) or did some due diligence in understanding the story they would have never been "appalled" by what happened.>

Again - I was THERE! I was on the team that won the Lost@con mystery challenge contest and i spoke on the panel for Hackers and guns.
The people here at Usenix are the others half of the hackers coin. They regularly find as many vulnerabilities in systems as hackers do and there is a lot more crossover and respect for the hacker community than you think.

<The only Neanderthals I see are the people who make erroneous statements and claims like the ones you just did. >

I was joking about the way we get after a few drinks and i included myself in the neanderthal statement. Didn't you get the self depricating humor? Duh!

<Moreover the problem with your "Personal Harm" statement is that while she was indeed followed with cameras and heckled, at no time outside of the Riv was she accosted. Unlike you, I'm actually quite impressed with the level of restraint that was shown by staff and attendee's, none of the actions they took could be described as that of thugs.

So honestly, your statements and those of your colleagues (read: fucktards) have no basis in fact. Also your lethal force argument has very little grounds in reality.>

My lethal force argument comes from both the published Florida and the Virginia State (covering 28 states) Non-Resident Concealed Carry Permit regulations. Read them yourself.

<Just some info from Nevada's Statues on "Stalking" [These are the exception to Stalking Laws (to counter the "Lethal Force argument")]:>


Stalking is not an issue here. At no time did anyone at Defcon stalk Madigan.

<
(e) "Without lawful authority" includes acts which are initiated or continued without the victim's consent. The term does not include acts which are otherwise protected or authorized by constitutional or statutory law, regulation or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, including, but not limited to:

(1) Picketing which occurs during a strike, work stoppage or any other labor dispute.

(2) The activities of a reporter, photographer, cameraman or other person while gathering information for communication to the public if that person is employed or engaged by or has contracted with a newspaper, periodical, press association or radio or television station and is acting solely within that professional capacity.

(3) The activities of a person that are carried out in the normal course of his lawful employment.

(4) Any activities carried out in the exercise of the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech and assembly.[/QUOTE]>


please understand. The public is already unreasonably afraid of us. Yes we *did not* hurt her. But in the parking lot she was seriously afraid that we would. Check the video again if you don't believe me. She almost hit a car in her hurry to get away. If we had stopped once she was out of the building, it would have been just as effective, and no one would be able to challenge that we had the high moral ground.

Again - the law states that "Fear of injury or bodily harm" is the legal grounds for shooting the intimidator.

-mouse

[skroo]

Re: The Madigan Incident

please understand. The public is already unreasonably afraid of us. Yes we *did not* hurt her. But in the parking lot she was seriously afraid that we would. Check the video again if you don't believe me.

I've watched the video several times, and I have to say that I still disagree with you.

Not to sound sexist, but men and women react differently to situations like this. She appeared embarrassed - not scared - throughout, and on the verge of tears by the time she got into her car. For a wide chunk of the female population, this would be an expected response under the circumstances.

She almost hit a car in her hurry to get away.

Also disagreed. She really just appears to turn the wrong way and realise her mistake.

If we had stopped once she was out of the building, it would have been just as effective, and no one would be able to challenge that we had the high moral ground.

This is a point that can be gone back and forth on pretty much ad infinitum. My personal feeling is that nobody went too far, and basically gave her a taste of her own medicine. Should others perceive it differently, there's likely not much that can be done to convince them otherwise.

Again - the law states that "Fear of injury or bodily harm" is the legal grounds for shooting the intimidator.

Regardless, this has little to do with the discussion at hand. Firearms were not involved in this situation, nor were they likely to have been. Again, this is a non-productive tangent.

[honey]

Re: The Madigan Incident

I believe Michelle Madigan should be awarded a swift BITCHSLAP and nothing else. She deserves this and this only for not only her actions but for making it harder for BLONDE hackers. It is bad enough that pretty blonde hackers are viewed by others as: “someone’s girlfriend”. NOW we will be viewed by our fellow peers as reporters too? BS!

BLONDES ARE HACKERS TOO!!!!!

[KeLviN]

Re: The Madigan Incident

And yes, goons were there. I can hear more than a couple goon voices in the background....

[J3di]

Re: The Madigan Incident

I've watched the video several times, and I have to say that I still disagree with you.

Not to sound sexist, but men and women react differently to situations like this. She appeared embarrassed - not scared - throughout, and on the verge of tears by the time she got into her car. For a wide chunk of the female population, this would be an expected response under the circumstances.

Having just watched the video for the first time, my initial thought to her actions were in line with someone who is very afraid of the activity occurring around her. Regardless of intent or lack of threat, being pursued by a large group of predominately male individuals would be pretty intimidating.

This is a point that can be gone back and forth on pretty much ad infinitum. My personal feeling is that nobody went too far, and basically gave her a taste of her own medicine. Should others perceive it differently, there's likely not much that can be done to convince them otherwise.

It's not about perception, it's about the facts. The fact is that this is an escalation of the activity that dateline takes when they pursue an individual for whatever reason. When dateline does this, it's just a dozen or so individuals pursuing. At DC, there were by some accounts close to 150 individuals pursuing her. (disclaimer, second hand accounts. I was not there personally). That reflects poorly on us as a community.

[BlackOrchid]

Re: The Madigan Incident

As a female who worked in jobs considered as 'dangerous,' I have to say this is humiliating at best!

This female chose to work in a dangerous field and is well aware of these dangers. Anytime a person goes undercover, there is a risk. Sorry, ... but she knows the risk to her job. If she doesn't, she needs to go back to journalism school!

I might have been embarrassed, humiliated, even intimidated, ... but never would I have 'feared for my life or safety." If she did her research, (as any good journalist should), she would have known there wasn't a reasonable fear.

Using the perception of 'male vs. female' argument doesn't work in this case any more than it works in law enforcement.

[octalpus]

Re: The Madigan Incident

while i think that a second look at the video shows the crowd to be very calm, walking slowly, and hurling nothing but the occasional joke or insult... the one thing it doesn't show clearly are the locations of any goons who were part of this situation.

i wasn't present and can't comment firsthand, but if the goons whom DT asked to escort her out stopped once they reached the door, that would be the only thing i could raise an eyebrow about. a couple red shirts escorting her to her car (whether she wanted it or not) would have been the most proper thing, i believe, just from a CYA standpoint.

like i say, however, i wasn't there so this may be, in fact, what happened. does anyone know if any red badge folk were part of the group that walked out with her?

A few minutes before the incident, I was highly encouraged by a friend to go over to the Track 1 area and I followed him out. She was never escorted out because she bolted when DT started discussing it. The goons did exactly what they should have, which was see that she left. There was an extremely large mob of goons behind her and hotel security was informed of the situation as she was leaving the premises.

[mouseling]

Re: The Madigan Incident

I guess the one thing I didn't make clear is that I don't give a fuck about Madigan herself. She deserved worse than she got.

But, what concerns me is public perception. The people I've been hearing from the in Academic community - are those that fully support the rights of people to hack - The owner of Freedom-to-Tinker is here, as is the author of Safecracking for the Computer Scientist and Every single person who worked on the California voting systems crack is here. -
if people who love hacking, percieve the video as somewhat disturbing, how much more so will Joe Public. And Joe Public already is irrational about us - so much so that legal penalties for hackers are much stricter than those of Murderers (ask Kevin Mitnik) - Now they are going to parlay this harmless incident into some phobia that we are a mob of raving, violence machines.

-mouse
ps: the reason i brought up the gun laws was to show that had she been carrying (which is not an unreasonable assumption in a state like Nevada) and put in fear of grievous bodily harm (not just fear of her life, but fear of being badly hurt) and had she fired, the courts would have sided with her, even though our people *never* touched her.

[BlackOrchid]

Re: The Madigan Incident

There's no history of mob violence at defcon (and again, I'm looking at the fact that she would have done research prior to her going undercover at defcon) Reason, fact, and prior history of defcon would not have justified the firing of a weapon. She's aware of the risk of her job.

But I do thank you for clarifying a lot of what you've said in previous post.

As for how others perceive us, it's not going to change no matter what. We're now labeled as 'Terrorist' for gawd sake!... People feared hackers before this incident and they will fear us no matter what. "Ya can't please everyone... so ya... gotta please yourself." (Ricky Nelson, 1972)