Denizens of DEF CON are 'fed up with government'

Hackers – especially Jake Braun – are "fed up with government." Braun was one of the creators of the first-ever Voting Machine Hacking Village at DEF CON in 2017 and served as a homeland security and cyber advisor to the Obama and Biden administrations. He also co-founded the Franklin project, named for Benjamin Franklin, who …

[Dan 55]

Blaming the wrong people

"This community is so committed to these principles of human rights and freedom of speech and science, that that when we see people fuck with them – or when we see the people that we elect to preserve these things not doing their fucking job – we're just like: ‘Fuck you guys,’" Braun said.

One thing nobody can accuse Trump of doing before being elected was running on a manifesto of human rights, freedom of speech, science, etc... The same goes for Reform in the UK or any other of these kinds of parties in other countries. They're all quite open about what they stand for, who they label as "the other", and what they will do to "the other" if they get into power.

So, I'm afraid the electorate got it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

So, I'm afraid the electorate got it wrong.

Ah yes, when it doesn't go your way you can always blame the voters for being too stupid.

[FBee]

the Leaders for being too stupid FTFY

"Course the Leaders are not Stupid, just self-centered power-hungry motherfuckers, and the voters think some of that will benefit/rub off on the hoi polloi

[Dan 55]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

I didn't say they were stupid. I said Tump was clearly not in favour of human rights, freedom of speech, or science and the people got exactly what they voted for.

If you're against human rights, freedom of speech, or science then you do you. You're probably not stupid but you are part of Hilary Clinton's basket of deplorables. To be honest I think you should own it, that way at least we all know where we stand and you'd have more respect. But snivel round with hurt feelings saying that they're calling you stupid... no, you're just a horrible human being and the guy in charge which you elected is also a horrible human being.

[LucreLout]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

Hilary I don't know what my husband is doing in that jacuzzi with the teenage girl Clinton?

I find it hilarious that in the UK the democrats are the lefts favourite party yet they're so far right leaning they make Reform look like Marxists.

The empty moralising of the left is tiring and pointless, given that almost all the horrors of modern history begin with one flavour of Marxist or other going too far.

Human rights, freedom of speech and science are not leftwing values. Not only not exclusively left wing values, but barely left wing values at all.

[Dan 55]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

I'm perfectly aware the US has two right-wing parties and the Democrats are the party that makes things worse more slowly than the Republicans. It doesn't change the fact that she was pretty much spot on when she said that.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

guy in charge whom you elected is a horrible human being's horrible human being.

[ecofeco]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

The way you are a shining example of your own point is commendable.

[Antifa - Ost]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

Go back to your muddy hole

[AnonymousCward]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

Always voting for the perceived lesser of two evils over a handful of issues still means knowingly voting in evil; that’s not stupid, but it is wrong, AC.

[JoeCool]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

"Stupid" is a perfectly good word.

What's you're objection, is it too "woke" to say that ?

In a democracy, the buck stops with the voter.

What word would you use ? Who do you say is to blame ?

[LucreLout]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

Let me guess, the right party is labour, right?

So ID cards, war, surveillance society. All the good stuff, yeah?

I realise SACO, but is there really anything you can think of to point at that this right sort of government of yours are doing that is going well?

[jospanner]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

No one said this, you’re arguing with yourself here.

[breakfast]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

The one thing I will give to Labour voters is that they had some reason to expect a Labour government after voting for the Labour party.

That wasn't really on the manifesto - Labour basically promised nothing ahead of the election, which makes it a little surprising how disappointing they have been in power. You promise nothing and still manage to be worse than expected? Extraordinary.

However, historically Labour have stood for a set of centre-left values - expressed by many of their candidates and MPs - and it is reasonable for people to vote on those values. Most of the reason for their amazing plummet in the polls is that after election they inscrutably chose to become continuity-Tories/Reform-lite, something nobody wanted and nobody voted for.

Voters in the USA have no such excuse. The Republicans promised authoritarianism, white nationalism, and a concerted effort to end American democracy. If people voted for that, we can assume it's what they wanted.

[DS999]

Re: Blaming the wrong people

So, I'm afraid the electorate got it wrong

The people voting for Trump weren't voting for human rights. They knew what they were getting on that front, especially the second time. Some of them may have been under the delusion they were voting for "free speech", based on mostly false conservative claims of censorship. Conservatives think they want freedom of speech, but they really want is freedom from consequences for their speech.

They're also quite happen to do and cheer on exactly the things they were railing against. Someone posts some Nazi stuff on social media and gets fired from their job, that's against freedom of speech from their point of view, but the first amendment doesn't guarantee you are protected from consequences for your speech (and it only applies to government action anyway, not being fired from a private company)

When people spoke up about Charlie Kirk in anything less than glowing terms, conservatives were doing all they could to get them fired (a couple teachers in the state I live were fired for Kirk related Facebook posts made outside of school hours - and not even really that bad just calling to people's attention how he thought if a few people had to die from gun violence that was a worthwhile tradeoff for 2A freedoms, their cases are now in court)

I think at least half of the people who voted for Trump would be quite happy to see the US turn into a dictatorship - if their side gets to be the dictators.

[that one in the corner]

All-of-society threats that governments have yet to fix ... authoritarianism

Fix?

What government is going to fix authoritarianism?

Maybe in some other country - "you naughty State, we are going to Liberate your people for you (Profit? What profit)" - but in the Homeland?

[cd]

Economic inequality is the root of many problems.

A currency that cannot be hoarded...there's a problem to solve.

[david1024]

The utopia!

Where unemployment is the solution and not a problem to be solved!

A nice dream, but I don't think we have enough tech to make that happen in 4-5 of my lifetimes

[that one in the corner]

Re: The utopia!

>> A currency that cannot be hoarded...there's a problem to solve

> A nice dream, but I don't think we have enough tech to make that happen in 4-5 of my lifetimes

Technology? A bit of basic metalwork for stamping coins.

[Neil Barnes]

Re: The utopia!

You beat me to it!

[EarthDog]

Without economic reforms nothing will work because under capitalism power becomes centralized

[LucreLout]

By hoarded do you mean saved and invested?

[Doctor Syntax]

"A currency that cannot be hoarded...there's a problem to solve."

What sort of problem to solve? The problem of nothing ever being done because there's no accumulation of capital to get good but difficult stuff started. Be careful you don't invent the medieval economy.

[Filippo]

I don't think you've picked a good example. The feudal economy regularly started projects with completion dates 100+ years in the future, often managed to see them to the end, with material and build qualities good enough to last for centuries if nobody knocks them down. Good luck doing that under capitalism.

Of course, the feudal economy also featured extreme inequality, and lots of those megaprojects were vanity or political or military and didn't actually contribute to making things better for the general population, except very indirectly. Which is closer to nowadays' capitalism than I'd feel comfortable about.

[dmesg]

I've seen a proposal that we make eggs our currency. Or maybe cheese.

[Tim99]

Yeah, Nah

How about leaves - several deciduous forests?

[VoiceOfTruth]

Benjamin Franklin and human rights

Benjamin Franklin and 'human rights' do not belong in the same sentence. He was a slave owner who made a lot of money owning and trading kidnapped persons.

Why do Americans keep holding up this slave trader as some kind of defender of human rights when he was so clearly not?

Pick somebody else.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

Franklin owned slaves as a young man, but later became a very outspoken abolitionist.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

Apologist.

Some people did not own slaves and didn't need to make that journey.

Franklin was a hypocrite who made a great deal of money trading in slaves. Only then did he see it was 'wrong'.

[ChoHag]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

Are you saying that people cannot make mistakes in their life which they later regret?

So everything you ever did was by design and we can hold you at fault for it centuries after your death regardless of how much "truth" you claim to spill?

I think I know why you're so familiar with the term "hypocrite".

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

Awww shucks. I owned some slaves. For years and years. But let me write some bollocks about freedom. Hmmm.

Sure, I've made mistakes in my life. That doesn't include owning slaves.

Why do some people keep trying to soften this crime against humanity? Franklin was a hypocrite. There are plenty of people who never owned slaves, so why not have one of them as a figurehead?

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

I will consider all down votes to be from people who do not oppose slavery.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

You're an even bigger blinkered idiot than we thought.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

Prove me wrong. Did Franklin own slaves, yes or no?

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

Nd did he subsequently oppose that? Answer yes or no.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

Why not pick somebody who was not a slave owner to be a champion of 'human rights'?

It's not hard. Instead we see it time and time again: apologists for slavery coming out of the woodwork.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

First, none of those you've debated, now including me, chose Franklin. The guy in the article did. Attacking us based on that choice is illogical, because we're correcting your misstatements, not defending his choice as the best one. Nobody ever suggested that Franklin did not enslave people, so challenging us to prove you wrong by claiming so is stupid in two different ways.

When people decide they want to use a single person as a representative, they have few choices available to them. Every historical figure has some pretty nasty things that weaken the good they also did. You keep suggesting that there are better people. How about you name one of them, and we can all lambast you for agreeing with the negative things that person said or did even if you never said you did, because there always turns out to be something. People generally end up choosing someone and referring to the good things they did or never associating themselves with any specific historical figures. I often prefer the latter option because there are so few of which nothing bad can be said.

Having said that, there is a lot of value in not writing off a person, especially if they regretted their actions. I've seen you defend plenty of dictators before, probably because they're not the US or UK and you don't like the US or UK. Perhaps you could recognize the harm you've supported by doing that, and we'll understand and defend your remorse. Failing that, you could stop preaching what you don't practice.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

When I choose a figurehead for something you will be able to critique that.

Anyone who apologises for a slaver owner and slave trader needs to examine their moral compass.

And stop trying to divert from this. The responders to my original criticism are the ones who didn't respond appropriately. If you look at my original post you will see the words: Pick somebody else. Because Franklin is not a good example of somebody who stood up for human rights. He was a hypocrite.

[QET]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

Buddy, I'm afraid the only hypocrite here is you for latching on to a early part of his life's history like it defines the whole life of someone.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

>> Early part of his life

He owned slaves for at least 46 years. Not quite the defender of human rights that some people claim him to be.

[LucreLout]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

Lol. People disagreeing with you aren't apologising for anything or anyone. They just think your take is laughably wrong.

I don't mean this in a bad way, but are you still in school? I ask because all you've done is show up, hyperfixate on one very badly made point, stamp your feet and abuse anyone that doesn't agree with you. Which on the face of it appears to be pretty much everyone. It's the sort of mentality you find in school common rooms.

At one point Britain was balls deep in slavery before we pulled out and abolished it everywhere. The fact we chose to end slavery in the world is of far greater importance to the modern world than the fact we used to make money off it.

Not all historic facts carry equal weight, and Franklin's later life carries more importance than his youth. It just does.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

>> Later life

After at least 46 years of being a slave owner.

Far too many people are happy to excuse his crimes against humanity.

[LucreLout]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

Nobody has excused it, its simply that its of far lesser importance than his later actions in life. In terms of scale you're comparing the temporary small scale impact against the permanent everywhere in America impact.

Again, the UK did financially well out of trading slaves, but the union jack is and forever will be the ultimate symbol of abolition of slavery. Its just not at all about excusing or apologising for the fact the country did it. Its just that it has comparatively absolutely zero relevance compared to the impact of our then abolishing it world wide.

We did it. It happened. It wasn't good. What we did after, by abolishing it globally forever matters so much more, and it always will. Same goes for Benny F. Which bit you struggling with? Try to use facts rather than emotion to express your response.

[David Hicklin]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

So you are saying that he should have been banned from doing anything good later in his life then?

[Sherrie Ludwig]

Re: Benjamin Franklin and human rights

I will consider all down votes to be from people who do not oppose slavery.

I will consider your consideration with the raucous hilarity it deserves.

[elsergiovolador]

Corporate circlejerk

There's a painful irony in an article celebrating the hacker spirit of freedom and independence while breathlessly reporting that Anthropic's Claude placed top 3% in a CTF competition.

Who exactly is this empowering? The independent hacker in their garage can't run frontier AI models. The compute costs alone put these tools firmly in the hands of corporations with billions in venture capital. So when Braun asks "when will AI be as good as humans at hacking?" - the real question is: who owns that AI when it gets there? Not the hacker community.

DEF CON was founded on the principle that knowledge and capability should be democratised. Now we're watching it become a showcase where corporations demo their products, and the "community" is enlisted to volunteer their time securing water systems and critical infrastructure that governments and corporations neglected in the first place.

The pattern is familiar: channel the rebellious energy, the freedom-loving spirit, the genuine technical brilliance of independent researchers into free labour and brand legitimacy for the very institutions that created these problems. The hackers get a sense of purpose and a conference badge. The corporations get security audits that would cost millions, plus the credibility of association with a counterculture they're actively absorbing.

Ben Franklin founded a volunteer fire department, sure. But he didn't do it so that the people who kept setting the fires could save on insurance.

You would think "hackers" are smarter than that.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Corporate circlejerk

That was bothering me as well. Massive consumption of resources, massive distortion of the economy, massive risk (to say the least) of a massive bubble with all the downsides that entails and the only question is whether it wins some competition.

[Tron]

Distributed social media.

Some examples exist, but its not mainstream enough yet.

[doublelayer]

Re: Distributed social media.

Some people may decide that's the problem they want to solve. To others, including me, this seems not too important as problems go. I don't understand why social media should be high on my priority queue when plenty of privacy problems that have more serious consequences are unsolved. So if you want to convince others, it might help to have more details and reasons to prioritize it.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

hacker mindset...

The last paragraph left out a few things...

Depending on the hacker, the hacker mindset is: Get the money. Do it for the lols. Get revenge. Get porn, especially the good looking neighbour. Lets test whether that kill bit really kills someone oups! It does! etc etc