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 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.

Being referenced in the documents does not equate to involvement in Epstein’s crimes.

More details:

https://www.nextgov.com/people/2026/02/def-con-bans-hackers-technologists-named-epstein-documents/411502/

@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

In what universe, contemporary or historical, has that principle, as drafted and implemented, benefitted demographics other than rich white men?

@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!)

@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.

@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 @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.

@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.

@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.