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

@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.

@JessTheUnstill @gcluley That is all well and good, until some day someone makes a false allegation about you, because they know this is how people react on allegation alone. Then the reason we have innocent until proven guilty comes to light.

The problem is the emotional nature of these types of allegations.

Personally, in this case, I'd side with banning those people, and an organisation has that right.

But in general, if you react to allegations, then allegations become a weapon.

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

@JessTheUnstill @gcluley

1. False accusations are rare *now*, what if every accusation by anyone of anything ruined people's lives ?
2. I agree, and not good.
3. Yes, but that puts people in the position of being a judge, having to assess credibility which is not good.
4. Quite agree, as I repeatedly said, in this case I quite support the ban.

My issue is that as a general principle, innocent until proven guilty is good system to avoid creating more types of abuse of the system.

@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.

Wow, did you really not pay attention in #metoo at all?

1. False accusations are rare.
2. The accuser already almost ALWAYS ends up more isolated and damaged than the accused
3. There's a difference between accusation and credible accusation, and I trust DEFCON to be able to make that distinction
4. We're not talking about "this person gets locked in a box for the rest of their lives based on a single witness", we're talking "you don't get to come to our party".

@revk @gcluley

@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.

@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

@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!

@gcluley Santa Claus is referenced several times there. What a pervert, eh?

@JessTheUnstill @gcluley That is all well and good, until some day someone makes a false allegation about you, because they know this is how people react on allegation alone. Then the reason we have innocent until proven guilty comes to light.

The problem is the emotional nature of these types of allegations.

Personally, in this case, I'd side with banning those people, and an organisation has that right.

But in general, if you react to allegations, then allegations become a weapon.

@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

@TindrasGrove @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Indeed.

Oddly I have repeatedly said they did well to ban them. Did people not see me say that?

I feel sorry they found themselves in a position of having to decide on such things. The law should have taken action long before.

@gcluley Which you have to balance with an organisation's ability to decide to ban anyone it likes based on any reason (apart from legally protected characteristics), or no reason.

Always a challenge.

And no, I am not defending those in the damn files. FFS. Nobody should have to be judge and jury on these allegations, this should have been decided in law and people prosecuted already, simple.

@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.

@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

@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.

@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.