DEF CON has banned a number of people from attending its hacking conference in Las Vegas, after they were named in the Epstein files.
-
Being referenced in the documents does not equate to involvement in Epstein’s crimes.
More details:
@gcluley A youtuber was named, on the grounds of something like mention by a friend-of-a-colleague, purely because of expertise in theoretical physics.
To be clear she is more trustworthy that most, in my book. Integrity runs deep.
-
@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.
No, not actually a challenge. You ban sex pests and abusers and people who associate with them.
People who whine and say "but innocent til proven guilty", you tell them to stay home if they don't want to come to your hacker party that bans sex pests.
And then you've accomplished your goal twice over - both getting rid of the sex pests AND getting rid of the sex pest apologists. And the place is safer for it.
-
No, not actually a challenge. You ban sex pests and abusers and people who associate with them.
People who whine and say "but innocent til proven guilty", you tell them to stay home if they don't want to come to your hacker party that bans sex pests.
And then you've accomplished your goal twice over - both getting rid of the sex pests AND getting rid of the sex pest apologists. And the place is safer for it.
@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.
-
@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
What do you think is the ratio of falsely accused rich white men to actual fucking sex pests who keep getting away with it?
Maybe the problem is the prevalence of these types of incidents.
-
That's not the point at all and you know it, Graham.
This is just "You can't come to our hacker party if you work directly with the ring leader of the largest sex trafficker pedophile ring"
Seriously, stop carrying water like that.
@JessTheUnstill @gcluley Jesus. At this point, starting to ask myself what kind of person would defend someone who knowingly benefited from or helped out a known registered sex offender? I guess his sex trafficking money and position of power made it all ok. I mean , it's "not a crime" to do what they did, but holy shit dude, maybe no one wants to platform them apart from you.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/14/epsteins-hackers-defcon-black-hat-00779365
-
@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.
Wow, did you really not pay attention in #metoo at all?
- False accusations are rare.
- The accuser already almost ALWAYS ends up more isolated and damaged than the accused
- There's a difference between accusation and credible accusation, and I trust DEFCON to be able to make that distinction
- 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".
-
@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
I can't help but feel like you're tut-tutting over a strawman argument here. DEFCON isn't reacting to allegations. They're reacting to available evidence. They've decided that the banned individuals' level of known involvement with Epstein is enough for them to want nothing further to do with them.
-
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley
What do you think is the ratio of falsely accused rich white men to actual fucking sex pests who keep getting away with it?
Maybe the problem is the prevalence of these types of incidents.
@Cassandra @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Not really the point.
The ratio now may be very skewed one way, and I expect so.
But if everyone reacted as judge and jury for every accusation of every type, it becomes a weapon and becomes something people can abuse in itself.
Hence my comment that, for these, I quite agree banning is right, but not as a general principle.
The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a good one, and abandoning it generally leads to problems in the long run.
-
@Cassandra @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Not really the point.
The ratio now may be very skewed one way, and I expect so.
But if everyone reacted as judge and jury for every accusation of every type, it becomes a weapon and becomes something people can abuse in itself.
Hence my comment that, for these, I quite agree banning is right, but not as a general principle.
The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a good one, and abandoning it generally leads to problems in the long run.
@revk That principle has certainly been beneficial to rich white men and their fancy lawyers and golf buddy judges, yes.
-
Wow, did you really not pay attention in #metoo at all?
- False accusations are rare.
- The accuser already almost ALWAYS ends up more isolated and damaged than the accused
- There's a difference between accusation and credible accusation, and I trust DEFCON to be able to make that distinction
- 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".
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.
-
@Cassandra @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Not really the point.
The ratio now may be very skewed one way, and I expect so.
But if everyone reacted as judge and jury for every accusation of every type, it becomes a weapon and becomes something people can abuse in itself.
Hence my comment that, for these, I quite agree banning is right, but not as a general principle.
The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a good one, and abandoning it generally leads to problems in the long run.
Gotcha. I'll keep advocating for conventions to ban sex pests based upon credible accusations.
You can keep advocating to continue inviting people who can't be PROVEN to be sex pests.
We'll see which of our parties has more women show up.
-
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley
I can't help but feel like you're tut-tutting over a strawman argument here. DEFCON isn't reacting to allegations. They're reacting to available evidence. They've decided that the banned individuals' level of known involvement with Epstein is enough for them to want nothing further to do with them.
@EdCates @JessTheUnstill @gcluley
Yes, they are assassin credible evidence.
Well done, but they are NOT a court. They should not have to be in that position.
It is entirely up to them, and I quite agree with the ban.
-
Gotcha. I'll keep advocating for conventions to ban sex pests based upon credible accusations.
You can keep advocating to continue inviting people who can't be PROVEN to be sex pests.
We'll see which of our parties has more women show up.
@JessTheUnstill @Cassandra @gcluley They have the choice who they invite and who they ban.
I have even said, REPEATEDLY, that I agree with their ban, someone else needs to LISTEN here...
But they should (a) not have to find themselves in position of being a judge and jury, and (b) if everyone does this for everything it becomes a weapon in itself (we are far from that).
Ideally people in the files should already have been convicted and then there would be no issue, and no decision.
-
No, not actually a challenge. You ban sex pests and abusers and people who associate with them.
People who whine and say "but innocent til proven guilty", you tell them to stay home if they don't want to come to your hacker party that bans sex pests.
And then you've accomplished your goal twice over - both getting rid of the sex pests AND getting rid of the sex pest apologists. And the place is safer for it.
@JessTheUnstill @revk @gcluley
It's always wild to me when I see people defending the sex pests bc "it's just allegations" or whatever. But you KNOW they're not hopping in comments against transphobes or homophobes and saying "there's no reason to treat people this way" and actually standing up for queer people.
Like, my name isn't in any files. And yet the entire country is blaming me for shit some right wing asshole did last week and threatening to strip me of my rights.
All anyone wants to do with these people is kick them out of a conference bc there's actually credible evidence they did something wrong and every middle aged white dude is like "omg protect the white men!"
-
@JessTheUnstill @revk @gcluley
It's always wild to me when I see people defending the sex pests bc "it's just allegations" or whatever. But you KNOW they're not hopping in comments against transphobes or homophobes and saying "there's no reason to treat people this way" and actually standing up for queer people.
Like, my name isn't in any files. And yet the entire country is blaming me for shit some right wing asshole did last week and threatening to strip me of my rights.
All anyone wants to do with these people is kick them out of a conference bc there's actually credible evidence they did something wrong and every middle aged white dude is like "omg protect the white men!"
@CordiallyChloe @JessTheUnstill @gcluley To be clear, I am not defending anyone in these files.
In an ideal world there would not be a cover up and there would not be mere allegations, there would be convictions and people in prison. That is what needs fixing.
So well done banning these people.
But it should never have come up.
-
No, not actually a challenge. You ban sex pests and abusers and people who associate with them.
People who whine and say "but innocent til proven guilty", you tell them to stay home if they don't want to come to your hacker party that bans sex pests.
And then you've accomplished your goal twice over - both getting rid of the sex pests AND getting rid of the sex pest apologists. And the place is safer for it.
@JessTheUnstill @revk @gcluley yup - why it’s important that codes of conduct have a “we can kick you out for any reason whatsoever” clause.
-
@CordiallyChloe @JessTheUnstill @gcluley To be clear, I am not defending anyone in these files.
In an ideal world there would not be a cover up and there would not be mere allegations, there would be convictions and people in prison. That is what needs fixing.
So well done banning these people.
But it should never have come up.
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley
And in an ideal world, I wouldn't have to have this conversation where you ignore the point I'm making, most likely bc you know I'm right.
-
@CordiallyChloe @JessTheUnstill @gcluley To be clear, I am not defending anyone in these files.
In an ideal world there would not be a cover up and there would not be mere allegations, there would be convictions and people in prison. That is what needs fixing.
So well done banning these people.
But it should never have come up.
@CordiallyChloe @JessTheUnstill @gcluley know someone that was "wrongly accused" (not Epstein) and the hassle and stress it caused their life. The entire system geared around protecting the "victim" that was never a victim. This finally led to the supposed "victim" now being investigated.
It is RARE, but happens.
The legal system needs to protect people either way. It needs to be very sensitive to real victims. But any system can be abused by people who know the system will make assumptions.
-
Gotcha. I'll keep advocating for conventions to ban sex pests based upon credible accusations.
You can keep advocating to continue inviting people who can't be PROVEN to be sex pests.
We'll see which of our parties has more women show up.
Would you prefer to go to a hacker convention that bans people who, per evidence, are friends with / do business with known sex pests?
-
@JessTheUnstill @revk @gcluley yup - why it’s important that codes of conduct have a “we can kick you out for any reason whatsoever” clause.
@TindrasGrove @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Indeed, and in this case, well done.
This is a rare case of "mere accusations" being unusually credible because of the huge cover up of the evidence.
It puts organisations in the uncomfortable position of having to be judge and jury.
But they have the fall back of "we can ban someone for any, or no, reason", making it simple.
