Slashdot Mirror
Controversy Over Violet Blue's Harm Reduction Talk
Weezul writes "The Ada Initiative's Valerie Aurora got Violet Blue's Hackers As A High-Risk Population (29c3 abstract) talk on harm reduction methodology pulled from the Security BSides meeting in San Francisco by claiming it contained rape triggers [ed note: you might not want to visit the main page of the weblog as it contains a few pictures that might be considered NSFW in more conservative places]. It's frankly asinine to object to work around hacker ethics as 'off topic' at such broad hacker conference. Is Appelbaum's 29c3 keynote 'off topic' for asking hackers to work for the 'good guys' rather than military, police, their contractors, Facebook, etc.? Yes, obviously harm reduction is a psychological hack that need not involve a computer, but this holds for 'social engineering' as well. It's simply that hacking isn't nearly as specialized or inaccessible as say theoretical physics. Worse, there is no shortage of terrible technology laws like the CFAA, DMCA, etc. that exist partially because early hackers failed to communicate an ethics that seemed coherent and reasoned to outsiders."
The Ada Initiative responds that such talks do more harm than good. It could also be argued that "not working for the bad guys" type talks aren't off-topic, since the hacker community has traditionally cared about things like information freedom.
Instead of sounding off like an idiot, you should read the response by Ada to the controversy. Ada foundation was perfectly reasonable in making a recommendation they were ASKED to make given the limited information that was available to them.
http://adainitiative.org/2013/02/keeping-it-on-topic-the-problem-with-discussing-sex-at-technical-conferences/
When the talk was canceled, there was only the title to go by:
From the link:
Background
The computer security conference BSides SF (held in San Francisco on 24â"25 February 2013) invited Violet Blue [note: sexual imagery at link] to give a talk, subject to be determined. The title of the talk was listed on the conferenceâ(TM)s online schedule as âoeTBDâ until a small number of hours before the talk, when it was updated to âoesex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploitsâ
In computer security jargon âoevuln[erabilitie]s and exploitsâ are respectively weaknesses in computing and related systems, and ways to take advantage of them in order to break into or âoepenetrateâ the system. The precise meaning of the title is ambiguous, but to people familiar with the jargon, a reasonable interpretation of the title might include using drugs to exploit someone into having sex without consent (i.e., rape).
The abstract of the talk was not available until after the decision to cancel the talk, and does not reflect the same topic as the title of the talk suggests.
Or, are you a right-wing republican rapist? Yeah, your comment is just as stupid.
The Ada Initiative's Valerie Aurora got Violet Blue's Hackers As A High-Risk Population (29c3 abstract) talk on harm reduction methodology pulled from the Security BSides meeting in San Francisco by claiming it contained rape triggers.
Linux kernel developer Valerie Aurora, who founded a women's rights and FOSS non-profit in 2011, apparently had something to do with pulling a Chaos Communication Congress talk in San Francisco by a controversial sex author (who has a long history of having posts deleted and accounts closed by everyone from Boing Boing to Google for every reason from her opinions to her name) because the talk might trigger flashbacks in rape victims. Am I reading slashdot or is someone watching Gossip Girl in the next room with the volume turned up too high?
It frankly asinine to object to work around hacker ethics as 'off topic' at such broad hacker conference. Is Appelbaum's 29c3 keynote 'off topic' for asking hackers to work for the 'good guys' rather than military, police, their contractors, Facebook, etc.?
Apparently the author of the summary is rebutting an argument he has failed to share with the rest of us... And using disjointed, broken English to accomplish this... And then asking for our opinion on Applebaum's keynote. Who the hell is Applebaum? Maybe I should know, but I don't care. What is this summary about?
Yes, obviously harm reduction is a psychological hack that need not involve a computer, but this holds for 'social engineering' as well.
The author answered his own question, a common technique to attempt to force opinions on people by asking a question so they open their minds to consider possibilities and jam an opinion in during the window of opportunity. It might have been more successful if the audience wasn't still busy trying to figure out what the author was talking about in the first place. Fail on multiple levels. I could be doing something useful right now, like brushing my teeth, but this is epically bad. It's like watching the aftermath of a train wreck. You just stare in amazement.
It's simply that hacking isn't nearly as specialized or inaccessible as say theoretical physics.
Random meaningless and false generalization about hacking. I think the author has even lost track of what he was saying... this could get interesting. Wait for it...
Worse, there is no shortage of terrible technology laws like the CFAA, DMCA, etc. that exist partially because early hackers failed to communicate an ethics that seemed coherent and reasoned to outsiders.
Apparently, terrible technology-related laws are worse than... something... perhaps this summary. Oh, and failing to communicate things in a coherent fashion is bad. Wait, was that self-flagellation on the part of the summary author?
I watched the YouTube video of the sex author's talk, and she's almost as incoherent as the author of the summary. Perhaps she makes sense to him, and vice versa. Or perhaps they are one and the same. After about five minutes of watching, I was trying to figure out what the hell she was talking about when she said something to the effect of, "so you can see what I'm trying to say." Translation: I can't express myself well enough to explain what I'm talking about, so I'm going to suggest that everyone in the room understands, and if you don't there must be something wrong with you. At that point I closed the video and was done with it.
Nothing to see here, unless you like drama about train wreck stories about train wrecks.