DEF CON has banned a number of people from attending its hacking conference in Las Vegas, after they were named in the Epstein files.
-
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.
-
@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.
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley And yet, that’s not what happened. The people with the easiest jurisdiction over the named *alleged* perpetrators have been refusing to prosecute, hiding documents, trying to silence victims. In this real world, what is the application of that lofty legal principle?
-
@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 Err, same to you.
Actually, in an ideal world, the abuse would not have happened.
-
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley And yet, that’s not what happened. The people with the easiest jurisdiction over the named *alleged* perpetrators have been refusing to prosecute, hiding documents, trying to silence victims. In this real world, what is the application of that lofty legal principle?
@Cassandra @JessTheUnstill @gcluley The legal principle stands.
The failure of that legal principle to be applied needs to be addressed.
Sorry, but the principle is good, the implementation in this case is very very bad.
As I have said, I have seen a case of someone I know wrongly accessed of doing something, and the consequences of that. It has to be the very rare case, I know. But the system needs to be fair both ways.
These files are an appalling failing of the system, and need sorting.
-
@Cassandra @JessTheUnstill @gcluley The legal principle stands.
The failure of that legal principle to be applied needs to be addressed.
Sorry, but the principle is good, the implementation in this case is very very bad.
As I have said, I have seen a case of someone I know wrongly accessed of doing something, and the consequences of that. It has to be the very rare case, I know. But the system needs to be fair both ways.
These files are an appalling failing of the system, and need sorting.
In what universe, contemporary or historical, has that principle, as drafted and implemented, benefitted demographics other than rich white men?
-
Being referenced in the documents does not equate to involvement in Epstein’s crimes.
More details:
@gcluley Santa Claus is referenced several times there. What a pervert, eh?
-
@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.
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley being banned from an event is very different from legal action. There is no judge and jury. Just a bouncer at the door.
Event organizers have not only the right, but the responsibility, to curate who attends the event. Based on any criteria whatsoever (hopefully in consultation with their legal counsel to avoid actual illegal actions, but this is where the code of conduct comes in!)
-
In what universe, contemporary or historical, has that principle, as drafted and implemented, benefitted demographics other than rich white men?
@Cassandra I am not sure why this comes in to wealth or race.
The principles apply to all. The principles of "law" are not a bad system generally, in PRINCIPLE. A lawless society would be worse, and even more biased.
The sad thing is they fail in practice, and I am sure that is where race and weather come in. The system clearly has failed this time, badly.
-
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley being banned from an event is very different from legal action. There is no judge and jury. Just a bouncer at the door.
Event organizers have not only the right, but the responsibility, to curate who attends the event. Based on any criteria whatsoever (hopefully in consultation with their legal counsel to avoid actual illegal actions, but this is where the code of conduct comes in!)
@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.
-
@Cassandra I am not sure why this comes in to wealth or race.
The principles apply to all. The principles of "law" are not a bad system generally, in PRINCIPLE. A lawless society would be worse, and even more biased.
The sad thing is they fail in practice, and I am sure that is where race and weather come in. The system clearly has failed this time, badly.
-
@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 @Cassandra @JessTheUnstill @gcluley
It’s always a white man who brings up the whataboutism of false accusations.
Now I know you’re going to say well golly 5% of rape accusations are found to be false.
Don’t ask me how I just know it.
Except the thing of it is that most sexual assaults are not reported so the 5% number doesn’t really hold.
With barely 20% of sexual assaults reported, I will always be on the side of the accuser. -
@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 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.
-
@revk @Cassandra @JessTheUnstill @gcluley
It’s always a white man who brings up the whataboutism of false accusations.
Now I know you’re going to say well golly 5% of rape accusations are found to be false.
Don’t ask me how I just know it.
Except the thing of it is that most sexual assaults are not reported so the 5% number doesn’t really hold.
With barely 20% of sexual assaults reported, I will always be on the side of the accuser.@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.
-
@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.
@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 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.
-
@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.............
-
@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!
-
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.
-
@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.
