DEF CON has banned a number of people from attending its hacking conference in Las Vegas, after they were named in the Epstein files.

@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley if somebody shows up as a minor contractor, wage laborer, or is just mentioned I'd say you have something to discuss. If they're pals or business partners... then they would've been exposed to enough information to have cut their acquaintance short. It's not that hard to decide.

@CatDragon @Cassandra @JessTheUnstill @gcluley I doubt it is anywhere near as high as 5% at present, and yes, white male here.

And yes, more should be reported, very much so.

I know exactly one case that was false, someone I know. And the impact it had.

My concern if abandoning any legal process of innocent until proven guilty, so presuming allegations are always valid.

That creates a new weapon - accuse anyone and ruin their life.

So yes, ban in this case makes a lot of sense. But not all.

@wronglang @JessTheUnstill @gcluley If talking of the Epstein files, indeed.

There will be very few innocent people mentioned - e.g. some bricklayer.

I have no doubt the people banned in this instance are very reasonably banned.

These files have been covered up.

This is a huge failing of law.

Almost anyone in them is highly suspect.

It is the extreme case of "be judge and jury and decide on allegations alone". Very much so, because of failure of law to act.

But it is that, none the less.

@wronglang @JessTheUnstill @gcluley I also rather hate any debate where I end up playing "devil's advocate" like this.

I hope a debate on here, as opposed to the book of face or xshitter, can be reasonable as a debate.

I am not in any way supporting the deplorable people involved with Epstein.

I am making a point of debate more on principle, and on possible creation of new avenues of abuse.

A principle that a company can ban anyone.

But also a principle of innocent until proven guilty.

@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Interesting. I wonder how much you are sweating about a "false allegation" upending your life.............

@reflex @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Not my life, well, someone could make such a false accusation and I am sure it would cause me a lot of issues. The point is, it should not, unless and until "proved".

But I know someone that was falsely accessed of something, and it caused a lot of problems, and stress. He was, finally, after a long time, and a lot of police investigation, exonerated. The accuser was using the system to cause him problems, and is now being investigated, finally.

Very rare!

@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley It's not just presumptive association with sexual crimes that suggests a ban is appropriate, although that by itself would be sufficient in my view - the scales currently tip too much towards protecting perpetrators and abandoning victims to hand-wring about hypothetical future harms if false accusation became more common.

It's also that corruption and blackmail were rife there. It's unwise to invite ppl who may work for bad actors, whether willingly or not.

@tartley @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Yeh, in this case, as I keep saying, the ban is very sensible in these circumstances.

@tartley @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Hard to follow when people in the debate delete their posts or somehow block me.

I am not saying my view is right, but I think it worth debate, that is all. I may even be swayed.

These things are never simple, IMHO.

@JessTheUnstill @revk @gcluley I can’t believe it’s 2026, we have people who are openly involved with horrific sex scandals who are running a country, running major tech companies, and yet I still have to hear about the supposed damage of false accusations

@renata @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Just to be clear

I am not saying any of these in the Epstein files have false accusations, I do not know, but seems very much unlikely to me any are "false".

I am talking of the more general case of such things, as a debate. And slightly concerned at people responding so extremely and not considering wider issues.

Sorry.

@renata @JessTheUnstill @gcluley It seems odd people cannot grasp.

1. As a general rule, and rule of law, mere accusations should not be able to ruin peoples lives, and even get them banned from a conference. I know someone who has suffered for this.

2. But also a conference can ban anyone.

3. But at the same time Epstein is such an extreme case of cover up and abuse, merely being in the files is reason to ban people, as an edge case that is not quite how things really should normally work.

@JessTheUnstill @revk@toot.me.uk @gcluley Blocked the victim-blaming apologist

@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Since most such cases are he said/she said your point essentially means 95% of abusers will never face any consequences, even minor social consequences such as not being permitted at a conference.

I'm very okay with a bit of inconvenience for men to make it less worth it to harass and abuse women and children.

@bontchev @gcluley did Arius write this

@revk Fella, I hate to break it to you, but "what if someone makes a false allegation about you" isn't some hypothetical scenario to trans women, it's just Tuesday. We're dealing with "how do we handle people who use the constant false allegations to whitewash their actual abuse" while you're wringing your hands about the idea that someone might treat you like y'all already treat everyone who isn't a straight white man.

@JessTheUnstill @gcluley

@SymTrkl @JessTheUnstill @gcluley That is actually a point I had not appreciated.

Thanks for that.

My thought is false allegations are rare, but if they are acted on with no evidence and no legal process then become a weapon.

I had not appreciated that there is a whole community for which such false allegations are "normal".

It highlights my point to be honest. allegations should be that, private not not ruining lives until "proved". This is my whole point.

Not defending Epstein crap.

@revk @TindrasGrove @JessTheUnstill @gcluley this thread is far too long.

These aren't potentially baseless accusations. People aren't being banned over heresay. There is public evidence.

Saying that you don't want people banned in the future over false allegations is ridiculous. Nobody wants that. The fact that you feel the need to say that is maybe suspicious, maybe stupid. It's another version of "not all men" or "not all white people." You clearly are misunderstanding something and should excuse yourself, or you are trolling or sealioning.

@revk I disagree that this is just a legal matter. Law is a 'punish the perpetrator by the book' thing where events and societies have different goals and standards.
Actions that are completely legal might still be unwelcome at an event or in a certain social circle and that is good.
A ban is not just a punitive thing, but a curation decision.
It's also something that should be applied more in these types of cases - if there's a rape allegation at a frat party, the whole frat becoming unwelcome at college parties would probably be more impactful in preventing future harm and helping the victim feel better than the current justice system.
I've said stuff that got me blocked or banned by people, and that's been healthy for me - I didn't always learn my lessons immediately, but it shows that someone had values/standards I wasn't meeting and they no longer wanted to associate. That's a strong message we should all be willing to both give and take.

@revk
My take is mostly that there should be proportionality between the degree and "officialness" of the sanction, and severity, and apparent standard of evidence of the allegation. Imprisoning people (or in some countries still, executing them) needs a bloody high burden of proof. Seeking civil compensation, a bit less so. Banning people from conferences feels rather further down the scale, and should indeed be considered the organisers right.
@renata @JessTheUnstill @gcluley