Protest against Trump's US travel ban leaves PasswordsCon in limbo The next edition of the well-regarded PasswordsCon conference is in doubt as an indirect result of the Trump administration's controversial travel ban. Organiser-in-chief and founder Per Thorsheim is a Norwegian who would face no issues in visiting Las Vegas to run the conference in July. He has, however, "decided not to go …
The next edition of the well-regarded PasswordsCon conference is in doubt as at result of founder Per Thorsheim making a political statement.
A more more meaningful statement might have been if he'd refused to organsise an event in the US because of their disregarde of human rights in countries such as Iraq or Afganistan or the teatment of prisoners in Guantanamo etc etc.
But no, he's jumping on the anti-Trump bandwagon to make a meaningless political statement.
Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And at least I have one, even if it's contrary to the popular view.
But something I have noticed on The Reg, is the degree of animosity that almost amounts to bullying when someone does post a comment expressing an alternative view.
And it doesn't just extend to views on Trump. It seems that if any view goes against the majority and people start to get quite nasty.
Full disclosure: I don't give a shite about Trump. Don't like him, don't hate him, I just don't care about him.
"But something I have noticed on The Reg, is the degree of animosity that almost amounts to bullying when someone does post a comment expressing an alternative view."
It's everywhere. Graham Linehan (the writer of Father Ted) has been properly anti-Trump and he retweeted someone saying how old white men of the establishment hate change. So I ask them both if it would've been better if Hilary Clinton was in charge? What with the Gadaffi video and her asking why they couldn't drone Assange. He then tells me it's a conversation for adults only. A fairly childish remark, so I asked him why he was participating. Hello Block button.
The thing is there is a lot to the whole Presidential campaign in general. The focus on "Russian interferance" overtook the fact that Clinton was found to be dodgy via Podesta emails. The whole "Piss-gate" thing turned out to be a fan fiction story from 4Chan by an ex-MI5 guy who's all of a sudden gone missing. Then there's the murder of Seth Rich who worked for the DNC, shot in an apparent robbery but nothing was taken. There's also the case of the missing emails and how the FBI were prevented from investigating the theft and had to go through a third-party data recovery specialist to find out that, aparently, Russia was behind the hack. Just so happens the guy who owns the third-party data recovery business happens to be anti-Russian and supports a lot of anti-Putin/Russian Government groups. Oh and the pizza place in Washington? Deeply disturbing that someone goes in to it with an armed gun and opens fire because of "fake news" - but the FBI are looking in to the Podesta emails that mention this pizza place because of certain language used is akin to what peadophiles use. So is it still fake news if it's being investigated?
None of this, really, has been covered in the media. It's all fixations on Trump this and Trump that, and how people just so happen to bump in to Clinton who happens to be on a walk in the woods - Secret Service don't allow such people to "bump" in to people like that.
Joe Public take that on board from the media as Gospel truth and run with it. Then when we get in to situations like this on the internet, people stick to their version of the truth, like I do. However my truth, which I eluded to above, is taken from what I've found from the media and what I've found through independent research. That's a balanced view, that's how balance works. But this is 2017, people don't do balance anymore. They have their view, they air it, and they shout over people who dismiss their view. They don't debate it, they don't listen. They shout.
But yeah, God help the poor joe who has a valid viewpoint on some thing that a room full of people can't see.
And it doesn't just extend to views on Trump. It seems that if any view goes against the majority and people start to get quite nasty.
For example, if someone points out that Linux will never be popular on corporate desktops because Windows and Microsoft Office are the standard.
You can move from company to company knowing that MS Office will have the same, familiar interface everywhere. That's why Linux will never have a significant share of corporate computers.
It is too late to move it elsewhere.
Events like this are organized 2-3 years in advance. You cannot just move it to a different country in a moment's notice. Unless, of course, that country is some sort of command economy like North Korea where the Dear Leader can order a hotel with conference facilities to be emptied by date X.
"It is too late to move it elsewhere."
Wouldn't it be really FUNNY if _NOBODY_ were actually affected by the anti-terrorism (temporary) bans? Then all of that outrage would pretty much be MEANINGLESS.
Doesn't have 'a dog in the hunt'. No "standing". etc.
Let's see a list of people DENIED ACCESS TO THE USA who are planning on attending that meeting. THEN voice your complaints. Who knows, maybe a waiver can be worked out?
"The next edition of the well-regarded PasswordsCon conference is in doubt as at result of founder Per Thorsheim furiously virtue signalling." FIFY.
Indeed. It is interesting that no one has or is making a fuss about the 11 countries that totally ban people with an Israel passport entering their countries and have done for several years, not the few months of the US ban. There is also the problem that people have getting into those 11 countries if they have visited Israel.
This whole thing is an anti Trump protest because the snowflakes didn't get their own way.
"Indeed. It is interesting that no one has or is making a fuss about the 11 countries that totally ban people with an Israel passport entering their countries and have done for several years"
Slightly different, as those 11 countries ban Israel passport holders because of the way Israel treats the Palestinians and how they have built illegal settlements on Palestinian land.
That's a good point all these people complaining about Trump and his treatment of Muslim countries, Where are they when the country is bombing the shit out of the middle east? What are they doing about the drone strikes killing innocent Muslims?
Put the "We love Muslims" placards away because it's not fooling anyone.
But no, he's jumping on the anti-Trump bandwagon to make a meaningless political statement.
Hardly "meaningless" as it has definite ramifications for this and similar events. Just because you do not agree with the statement or it is not the one you would prefer to hear does not render it empty.
Right, here are the facts of the matter.
Whether you agree or disagree with Donald, lets spell it out.
The ban is in place.
He ordered it, it's being (for the most part) enforced.
Its staying put until legally its quashed (possibly) or there is some sort of uprising (unlikely).
So just fucking come to peace with it.
Crying about it and spitting your dummy out will change *nothing* in the immediacy.
Boycott your seminars, meeting etc. Somehow i doubt the Trump gives a shit.
*not condoning just getting sick of the hyperboly especially when the previous admin displaced some 2.5 million "illegals".
"Somehow i doubt the Trump gives a shit."
Not at present.
But as such actions make it more difficult to conduct intellectual endeavours such as meetings and engineering in the US then the US will start to lose economic strength to other parts of the world.
He might care then, although given that he'll be getting to the end of his term, maybe not. But it's quite likely that it'll take the US a lot longer to dig itself out of that hole than it took him to dig in in in the first place. Sadly the same thing is going to happen in the UK unless some of our own politicians have a sudden rush of brains to the head, look at the example the US is providing and realise it's something to avoid.
Somehow i doubt the Trump gives a shit.
Nope he will not. It all came out today. His doctor unintentionally spit it out.
The great orange one is on prostate medication which causes as a side effect him to be hairy.
I know only one such medication: methyltestosterone derivatives. The other signs of having a bit too much of this particular candy are: fits of rage, aggression, short fuse, bad temper, lack of self control.
I do not need any further justification of his behavior. I have seen it before (I had a teacher on the same meds in high school).
The great orange one is on prostate medication which causes as a side effect him to be hairy...
His doctor revealed that he was on finasteride to prevent hair loss. It is not listed as having the same side effects as methyltestosterone. It would seem that you will have to find a different justification for Trump's behavior.
cornz>>so just fucking come to peace with it
Why is it that the Trumpsters and Brexiteers feel that, now they've won, all protest is invalid? Politics is not a once-and-done affair. No sensible person said "look, South Africa has apartheid, so just fucking come to peace with it" whether or not they thought the protests and boycotts were productive.
Similarly the Republicans didn't say "We've got Obamacare now, so that's that" and the Brexiteers didn't say "look, we voted for to join the EU in 1974, so let's just live with it." And yet, now these people are in the ascendancy, they want us to regard all dissent as "crying about it and spitting out the dummy."
I accept that Trump won. I accept that Leave won. I do not accept that either of these things means anybody needs to shut up about it. That only happens when the political system has moved to authoritarianism (the left being just as guilty as the right in such cases). So, guys, accept that we are going to carry on protesting, because it's democracy. That is why you were able to campaign to change things for years and it is why you were able to eventually win. So if you intend to delegitimize democracy now that it has enabled you to succeed, you are also delegitimizing your own win.
I have to agree with (although I hate doing so with an AC) the comments about being able to protest.
I didn't vote for or against Brexit for the simple reason I had insufficient information to make an informed decision but if I had been forced (democratically) to cast a vote I would probably have gone for Brexit.
Demonstrations and protests are a method of letting people know how you feel, and to some extent the number of people attending demonstrates the strength of feeling overall. If one person protests then who cares, if one million people do so you need to start taking some notice.
In an ideal world protests and demonstrations wouldn't be needed because the overall view of constituents (in UK) would be represented by the elected official, or MP. Unfortunately this isn't the case and the representation is made based on the party view.
If true democracy took place then the MP would be voted in based on their general views but would then continue to do so. This would be impossible though and as a result you have a group of fools who purportedly represent your views when in reality it is anything but your views because it is 'in the best interests of the country, or think of the children, or we know best.....' and certainly nothing to do with what is in their best interest.
This then means people protest and demonstrate and sign petitions to show the establishment how they feel - which may or may not then have an effect on decisions that are made.
Brexit was a close run thing, so it is reasonable that all views should be considered and not just written off as you lost / we won so there. This should then influence how we proceed with negotiations in the coming years.
-- Opposition is legitimate, healthy, and necessary.
Zoe Williams wrote a piece in the Guardian about Hannah Arendt and totalitarianism. Here's an excerpt from the last paragraph:
"I still see the point in protesting as a concrete expression of solidarity. I’d take more, if under attack, from a person who went outside than a person who signed a petition. ... It seems clear, nonetheless, that it [a protest march] isn’t enough: that perhaps Arendt’s most profound legacy is in establishing that one has to consider oneself political as part of the human condition. What are your political acts, and what politics do they serve?
Or, to paraphrase Bob D: "You're gonna hafta serve somebody... it may be Steve Bannon or it may be the free world, but you're gonna hafta serve somebody."
There are legitimate ways of showing your dissatisfaction.
Having a toddler hissy fit isnt one of them.
Irrespective of whether you voted in or out of Europe, or voted Donald or Hillary, there was a democratic process which was lawfully followed. Just because the Hillary supporters and remoaners lost in a democratic show of the majority will, that doesnt give them the right to suddenly go all dissident.
At the very worst, in 4 years they will be able to vote him out of office. Being an impatient petulant little fuck wit changes nothing, either for better or for worse.
"Having a toddler hissy fit isnt one of them."
Organising an international meeting implies that attendees need to be able to get there.
Having a country suddenly apply arbitrary* travel bans to attendees interferes with such organising activity.
Stating that isn't having a hissy fit although objecting to someone stating it might well be.
*There's no basis for the ban in that any given individual being banned has done something wrong or that there's reason to think they will do something wrong. It's just that they come from some particular country. That's arbitrary. It's also directly contrary to the presumption of innocence which, I understand, used to be a big tenet of the US constitution.
There just seems to be a difference between the "usual grumbling" you get after any finely balanced election (the one Gore very narrowly lost, for example) and this time.
The opposition seem to be telling us not "we don't agree" but "if you agree, I don't have to listen to you any more, because you are an evil person*". I think the abuse might even be more vitriolic than the "birther" nonsense when Obama was elected. Not only is the new Prez being abused, but anyone who voted for him as well.
* "your father was a hamster, ..." etc.
Well, now that you happen to mention it: AP: Trump's voter fraud expert registered in 3 states
Including the votes of the illegals or not?
I really get sick of hearing about voter fraud every election cycle from the side that lost (and, even more ludicrously, sometimes from the side that won).
The last 5 years or so I've heard things like "voter fraud" and "illegal voters" being thrown around a lot. The problem with it is that no one of the people talking about it, not the strongest advocates of anti-voter fraud measures nor their strongest critics, has ever shown one iota of evidence that it's actually happening. In all of the voter fraud accusations I've seen no one has ever produced hard numbers that even indicate that there MIGHT be large scale voter fraud. Nor, I might point out, has anyone shown any numbers for the opposite. In my mind "voter fraud" has become nothing more than a democratic boogeyman, not real but a convenient target for unjustified fears.
In the absence of any evidence I say simply require sane precautions such as showing ID to vote. (And for those who would seriously argue against that measure, I've heard all the arguments and not a one of them holds water when not having an ID in the US effectively means you're homeless, which in turn means that you not having an ID is a much bigger problem that the government - and yes, this is the government's responsibility in my opinion - should be helping you tackle than you not being able to vote). Maybe if you want to get super paranoid make voters bring in proof of citizenship and residence when they register (though unlike IDs THAT measure actually has some valid points that can be argued against it). In my opinion until someone can actually show that there's some sort of large scale voter fraud going on there can be no justification for any more stringent measures than that on the matter.
Now all that said, sure, Hillary won the popular vote, but the popular vote doesn't matter in POTUS elections. That she won the popular vote but lost the election is a very good argument for getting rid of the electoral college (a very un-democratic process at its core) but not a valid one for getting rid of Trump. At least not if we want rule of law.
cornz>>so just fucking come to peace with it
Why is it that the Trumpsters and Brexiteers feel that, now they've won, all protest is invalid?
How do you equate "come to peace with it" to "all protest is invalid" ?
That's a perfect example of propaganda hyperbole, like responding to someone saying "I don't like smoking" with "How dare you demand that smoking be banned, you little eco-dictator".
Coming to terms with something you dislike means not spitting your dummy out from apoplexy every time the issue is mentioned. It does not, and should not, stop you constructively protesting it, and campaigning for it to be changed.
If valid protests are conducted rationally I should have no fear of expressing an opinion that is contrary to what the protesters are calling for (which is what, by the way?).
However, regarding the situation with Trump etc. I don't feel I can express any positive remarks about anything Trump related without fear (no matter what my reservations might be and that I don't agree with everything he is planning).
For example, I'm planning a trip to America soon. I feel that if I express any kind of positive remark about Trump I could end up in hospital or worse! That isn't right.
It's seems very odd to me that there are protesters with signs that say "Love, not hate" who are frothing at the mouth and looking very angry whilst doing so. The actions do not tally with the words - do you see what I'm saying?
...all protest is invalid
Not invalid, but a lot of protest (rioting, active attempts to grind the legislative process to a halt, that sort of thing) is counter-productive and/or inappropriate. The Democrat legislators who are refusing to show up to vote on Trump nominees because the vote isn't going to go their way, for instance, are accomplishing nothing but the derailment of the democratic process and grinding the gears of the legally elected government to a halt. The people rioting during the inauguration accomplished nothing but the destruction of private property. Unfortunately a distressing number of the "protests" against Trump have taken such forms.
Protest is fine, and I'll go to the mat to defend the right of someone who disagrees with me to protest something I like. But a whole lot of what's going on right now being called protest is nothing more than the adult version of temper tantrums and should be tolerated no more than the toddler versions are.
I don't think Norwegians have been committing terrorist outrages elsewhere, so Norwegians are, yes, generally welcomed. Breivik does count. He was a white supremacist terrorist. But he can rely on his brothers in the USA to carry on the good work, as they have so nobly done so regularly.
Sorry, my mistake - make that 6+ hours.
It seems President Bannon has decided that the US is to be a "Conservative Christian" society and, as one of the first steps on the way to this utopia, it will be legal to discriminate against those who don't fall into this category.
In addition to atheists, LGBT folk, etc who should make other plans, I suggest that any couples planning to visit the US who didn't get married in a church keep a close eye on where this leads.
Read https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 and you will see that Trump stattes that "The United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation."
You might say he is out to protect "atheists, LGBT folk, etc" so your point is completely untrue.
US conservatives have not necessarily agreed with largely liberal EU politics and actions for decades, but has any US technical expert refused to got to a technical conference in Europe because they didn't like the fact that in Norway Breivik was sentenced to 3 months in jail for each person he killed in cold blood, because they didn't agree with Germany's open immigration policy, or they were offended by Denmark restricting free speech for religious leaders?
I don't know of any such instances, and I think it goes to the fundamental differences in the way that liberals seem to react to their version of injustice, vs how conservatives react. Per Thorsheim is allowed to boycott any conference he wants to, but his public pontification and flag-waving is telling.
"Per Thorsheim is allowed to boycott any conference he wants to, but his public pontification and flag-waving is telling."
Yes it is.
It's telling us that it becomes pointless to organise international meetings in a country which will arbitrarily ban attendees from other countries. ban them not because of what they've done, not because of what they might do but because they're from another country.
He's telling us that. Most of us hear that. He's telling you but you weren't listening.
"It troubles me deeply that people – refugees – are excluded solely on their country of origin"
It troubles me that people are excluded for ever solely on their having being caught smoking a joint as a teenager.
America has always excluded those convicted of crimes of moral turpitude. The current ban is from countries having regimes which America considers to be untrusted or incapable of vouching for the lack of moral turpitude in people they are 'exporting'.
Yet no one from any of the banned countries has ever been tied to domestic terrorism in the United States. However, the countries where the terrorists that perpetrated 9-11 hail from, are not on the banned list.
In an unrelated coincidence, Trump has business investments in some of those same countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE).
Don't worry, he'll be donating the profits from those businesses to the U.S. Government. He said so when he was inaugurated.
You seriously believe that? Rule 1 says: "Anytime an elected official or political wannabee is moving their lips... they're lying.".
He may have said it, but I'll believe if/when he does it. Then again, I always look to Rule #1 no matter the political affiliation of the speaker.
You appear to be unable to distinguish between someone who has demonstrably committed a criminal offence* and someone who happens to come from one of a number of countries, despite not having demonstrably committed any offence, on the grounds that other people from the same country might be terrorists.
This is like another country banning US citizens from entering their borders because they might be crazed paedophile psycho clowns. You know, just like John Wayne Gacy.
*whether or not the act should be regarded as such is a matter for another discussion.
"You appear to be unable to distinguish between someone who has demonstrably committed a criminal offence"
What a fucking moron. America being unable to distinguish between someone who has demonstrably committed a criminal offence and someone who hasn't because they come from shitty countries that can't be trusted to record and report criminal offences is the whole fucking point.
America is no longer going to give people the benefit of the doubt - cry me a river.
"America is no longer going to give people the benefit of the doubt - cry me a river."
Guilty unless proven innocent? Will that apply across the entire US judicial system too? Or maybe just to everyone who lives in a list of certain areas, towns, cities or states where crime is high?
Thorsheim is another opportunist fake protester.
Like most protesters of the temp ban on travel from a short list of countries, he had no political statement while hundreds of thousands were being bombed, ISIL burned people to death. No political statement about the rise of violence and rape in Europe by the same immigrating culture. Just playing politics like so many others. He can rot just like all the other fake protesters and their fake Johnny come lately concern.
"no political statement while hundreds of thousands were being bombed, ISIL burned people to death. No political statement about the rise of violence and rape in Europe by the same immigrating culture."
@A/C
I think you must have clicked on Submit before you finished your comment as you've omitted your political statement about the deaths and injuries arising out of NI terrorism which was financed by so many US citizens.
Or are you just another Johnny-come-lately fake political protester?
Actually, I do "talk with" (not screaming or carrying a stupid sign about vaginas) my local state reps at least once a month, write letters to my senator and congress persons a few times a year. But yeah, most people don't and never will. They're to busy with TV shows and video games.
"It wasn't about water fountains in NC in the 1960s"
a bit off-topic I think, but I actually SAW those segregated water fountains. my family was visiting relatives in N.C. in 1967, and I didn't understand why I shouldn't drink from the "colored" fountain so, as there was no line, I started drinking out of it. And a black kid stared at me afterwards for having done it (he followed me later and when I said I was from California, he said something about wanting to go there - obviously to escape the SEGREGATION etc.). I saw no problem at all with drinking out of the same water fountain as a black kid, but my cousins and their friends were a bit shocked. It was a different kind of world, back then, at least in North Carolina.
As you pointed out, what's happening with respect to "bathroom choice" isn't like the water fountain and bathroom discrimination (and other discrimination) that falls under the umbrella of SEGREGATION (which I think we all agree was a BAD thing).
So I admit I made poor grades in Math courses in college. But part of my brain is saying that July is still around 6 months away, whereas this travel-ban is up in less than 3 months. Which means, maybe, that the travel ban will be gone 3 months before the conference? So, eh, did I screw up my arithmetic again? Are the PasswordsCon people really expecting that a lot of refugees from those seven countries will want to come to their conference in Vegas? I would think refugees are more into looking for food and a warm place to sleep than flaffing about with password security or hanging out with strippers.
Yes, but by then President Bannon could well have extended the ban to cover atheists, LGBT folk, and other undesirables (with the last group ill-defined so as to provide a catch-all when convenient). It is much more polite to tell the organisers now so they can make other arrangements, rather than to pull out later when the the US are further down the road to heaven-on-earth.
Technically, unless he has a visa or residency in the US, he does not have the right to put on an exhibition in Las Vegas if he is Norwegian.
I would have thought he'd need a CW-1 Temporary Work Permit at the very least.
The fact he's got through border control in Las Vegas does not mean he had any rights to do any work. Chances are that he travelled on ESTA. Travelling to put on an event would not be classified as business either, as he's doing actual work in the US. Business travel allows you to attend an event as a visitor, not to actually do any meaningful work.
" It troubles me deeply that people – refugees – are excluded solely on their country of origin. Or religion, as this #MuslimBan EO really seems to be about."
Per Thorsheim is a Norwegian who apparently doesn't know there are more than 7 Muslim countries in the World: Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are not on Trump's list for instance. The 7 countries were listed by the Obama administration as "Countries of interest" for exporting terrorists. If you are going to claim the moral high ground, try to get your facts straight first. I give Per 2 stars out of 10 for his protest.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
