RSA Boycot Group Sets Up Rival Conference

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RSA Boycot Group Sets Up Rival Conference

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 20, 2014 @06:18AM from the try-us-instead dept.

judgecorp writes "The group of security experts who urged people to boycot the RSA conference (over allegations that the security firm RSA has taken a $10 million bribe from the NSA to weaken the security of its products) have put together a rival conference called TrustyCon just down the road from San Francisco's Moscone Center, where the EMC-owned firm will have its conference at the end of February."

84 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Better Hope ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:20 · Score: 0, Insightful

The all better hope that they don't have any skeletons in their closet or some of them will fork to another conference.
I completely support this move, but he who is without sin, etc, etc.
1. Re:Better Hope ... by psithurism · 2014-01-20 07:35 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  What other security researchers have accepted $10,000,000?
  No one is "without sin," but there are some boundaries at which you stop being a normal person who has to bend his principles for the real world and become a complete dick who doesn't deserve to be a respected member of the white hat community.
  Anyway, got my W2, so I have to go get back to making my yearly donation to the government; I sure hope they won't blow it on multimillion dollar bribes.
2. Re:Better Hope ... by icebike · 2014-01-20 07:37 · Score: 2
  
  Well they could have started with a better name.
  Trustycon sounds like an oxymoron right out of the gate, like someone's idea of a sick joke.
  The problem we have is that the industry is defined now, whereas when it was starting out, there
  were not entire infrastructures available for every task. Just getting a new mechanism employed by
  web servers and web browsers has a huge inertia today. And the industry has made almost zero
  headway in the task of getting people to even sigh e-mail by default, let alone encrypt it.
  Now that email clients update themselves, rather than being installed and never touched
  again, the single thing that get most people's correspondence out of the hands of governments and
  advertising giants is opportunistic encryption built into the clients.
  It doesn't matter how secure your algorithms are if people won't use it.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
3. Re:Better Hope ... by mlts · 2014-01-20 08:29 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  What is killing us is the industry settling for "good enough". SSL is "good enough", with the assumption that CAs won't be compromised. This was true back in the 1990s, but Diginotar and other CAs have shown that the single, ultimate trust model will fail.
  Then there are devices. Even though I have a client key for one E-mail address, because iOS requires an Exchange server, no S/MIME for me unless I JB the device. PGP/gpg is doable, but some apps don't like being switched out and start glitching when they get switched back in. Android is better because of utilities that have better OpenPGP support (K9 Mail for example.)
  Once app makers and Apple can be convinced to have usable encryption (OpenPGP and S/MIME) on the individual E-mail level, the big hurdle will be getting users to work on webs of trust, or even just signing/decrypting messages. This isn't rocket science, but security is oftentimes tossed in the back seat compared to virtually anything else. It can be done, though. Most people lock their doors before they leave for the day, so getting them to click on the sign/encrypt button may be eventually doable, given the consequences of not doing so.
4. Re:Better Hope ... by icebike · 2014-01-20 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, the CAs are a weak spot, which governments and spies can easily co-opt. Single point of trust also become something of ponzi racket, taking your money but still not sure of who you are, and surrendering the keys to the castle upon any governmental whim.
  As for the webs of trust, I'm not sure that matters for most people. The concept is cool, but unless you are signing code or some such, it really doesn't matter in everyday life. When I send email to my family members, business associates, etc. and encrypt it by default, I'm certain their key is good, simply by the flow of communication over time.
  For example, when I communicate with someone in India about ordering $5000 worth of carved jade, the fact that someone showed up at a key signing party with something approximating credentials and convinced other people, who I don't know, that he was who he claimed to be, really provides no additional protection. Its a nice idea, but unworkable in the larger world.
  I submit that a web of distrust is equally effective. I may distrust a new merchant, I may distrust his keys, I may insist on samples, on references in other countries, I may insist on shipping confirmation of a bonded shipment by a carrier I choose from known companies, even specifying which office of that carrier is to be used, and payment by a money transfer method that affords me feedback without providing direct access to my account.
  By distrusting every link in the chain, the materials, the merchant, the shipper, the banks, I build trust over time, such that, future shipments can happen with a simple encrypted message. I've essentially LEARNED to trust this unknown person.
  This is the HUMAN method. It is the natural method, its worked for centuries.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
5. Re:Better Hope ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Well they could have started with a better name.
  What? Do you think people may confuse it with KrustyCon where all the Krusty the Klown merchandise is hocked to wholesalers?
6. Re:Better Hope ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  Trustycon is what they call the inmates in the county jail who are "good" enough to take jobs like cleaning the toilets, mopping the floors, helping with chow time and so on in return for a little bit of pay and some good time so they get out of the pokey a little bit earlier.
7. Re:Better Hope ... by zippthorne · 2014-01-20 09:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You know you can generate a certificate in Keychain and distribute that out of band, then send encrypted email using apple mail. Obviously both you and your recipients need to do this if you want to do anything more complicated than simply signing your mail.
  The thing that I'm upset about is that Apple still uses the compromised Comodo root for the certificates they use to sign patches with...
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
8. Re:Better Hope ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Even worse, there is no way to yank it out of the cert database. You trust what Apple trusts, or you use something else.
9. Re:Better Hope ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  that name actually has more vowels and less consonants than this one
10. Re:Better Hope ... by zippthorne · 2014-01-20 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  You can set the trust level on any certificate in the keychain to "never trust." The problem is that you are going to need to fiddle with it every time a new patch gets pushed out through the app store.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
11. Re:Better Hope ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 14:35 · Score: 0
  
  I sure hope they won't blow it on multimillion dollar bribes.
  Hey, a mere multi-million dollar bribe is about the cheapest and most effective means of subverting privacy and rights. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to get these capabilities without bribing a few key scumbags? You should be thankful the military-industrial complex is showing a little competency and efficiency for just once --- you're money is usually squandered by these goons in amounts that make ten million look like couch change.
12. Re:Better Hope ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 15:04 · Score: 0
  
  you're money is
  P.S., I am applyin'gs for a Slashdot editor position.
13. Re:Better Hope ... by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2014-01-20 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  $10 Million? Was this like in 1950 when $10 Million was a lot of money?
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
See... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:20 · Score: 0

They already hacked this post and made it Sand Francisco....
1. Re:See... by DickBreath · 2014-01-20 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  They could move the conference to Sandy Eggo.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
2. Re:See... by dfsmith · 2014-01-20 10:06 · Score: 2
  
  Sand Francisco: gateway to Silica Valley.
It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:21 · Score: 0

Now the NSA will have pictures of everyone visiting the "competing" conference.
Smells a lot like a honeypot.
1. Re:It's a trap! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-20 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  What terrible things have the NSA done to people who attended previous similar conferences?
2. Re:It's a trap! by freax · 2014-01-20 06:26 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Spy on them. Oh wait, that did this on all citizens on the planet ..
3. Re:It's a trap! by gstoddart · 2014-01-20 06:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What terrible things have the NSA done to people who attended previous similar conferences?
  Convinced people things were secure when in fact it's significantly weakened to allow the NSA to spy on people.
  If we're to believe news reports, we all suffer from much worse internet security because the NSA et al wanted to be able to monitor stuff.
  So, internet banking, internet shopping, and pretty much everything is suspected to now have flaws in the cryptography.
  They've done this to all of us, regardless of if we've been to the conference.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
4. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  But, but... you'll be on a list! You'll be in a database somewhere! You'll be blackballed for all government jobs! They'll make sure the IRS audits you this and every year! You'll get cavity searches every time you go through airport security! There will be black helicopters buzzing around your house! Your dentist will be forced to put in mind-control chips when he does your fillings! /end paranoia
5. Re:It's a trap! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-20 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  They've done this to all of us, regardless of if we've been to the conference.
  Yeah. So you didn't answer my question at all.
6. Re:It's a trap! by Sarten-X · 2014-01-20 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  If we're to believe news reports...
  There's your first mistake.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
7. Re:It's a trap! by gnasher719 · 2014-01-20 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Convinced people things were secure when in fact it's significantly weakened to allow the NSA to spy on people.
  Not sure what's the right thing to do, though. If the NSA tries that again on the RSA conference, wouldn't we want to have as many security experts present as possible?
8. Re:It's a trap! by gstoddart · 2014-01-20 06:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If I'm going to choose between who is more credible, the people providing examples and evidence of what they're doing ... or the lawmakers who keep braying that it's all legal ... then I'm afraid I'm more inclined to trust the news reports based on the leaks from Snowden.
  By rather a considerable margin.
  We already know the people defending this have lied about what they really do, which means they're not really deserving of any of our trust.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
9. Re:It's a trap! by gstoddart · 2014-01-20 06:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The alternate response is that if RSA did knowingly weaken commercial security, then you more or less have to stop trusting them.
  Acting like they've had a change of heart, and promise to never do it again is meaningless.
  In other words, the rest of the security community is turning their back on RSA for not being trustworthy -- and when you're a security company, that's a big deal.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
10. Re:It's a trap! by s.petry · 2014-01-20 06:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You didn't ask me, but I can still provide an answer. "What has the NSA done to people?"
  No frigging clue, because everything done is "secret". You can assume that they have done nothing, and I can assume they have done everything. Both of those are assumptions and neither could be proven.
  So has the NSA turned over documents to Police agencies, employers, the IRS, etc.. that have led to investigations or damages? I believe we have enough circumstantial evidence to believe the first and third of those examples have happened. I'm not trying to patronize, but you can look at Parallel investigations and the IRS investigating non-profits for more information. It was impossible to tell if you were defending them or not, so you may already have knowledge of the subjects.
  This is why we should all be demanding transparency from the agency and accountability from the whole Government. We don't know what they are doing because they label everything "secret". I find it logical to assume that if they are immoral in one area, we can assume that they are immoral in more areas. Wrong follows wrong, always has and always will.
  The same concerns we have over the NSA should exist with a company like RSA who only apologized and told customers to change practices _after_ they were caught taking money from a government agency at the expense of customers. They never refunded a penny to customers either, so they are more than deserving of a boycott.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
11. Re:It's a trap! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-20 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't ask me, but I can still provide an answer. "What has the NSA done to people?"
  No frigging clue, because everything done is "secret". You can assume that they have done nothing, and I can assume they have done everything.
  
  If people who disagreed with the NSA were arrested, or lost their jobs, or were audited, or were deported, or disappeared in the middle of the night, we would know about it. Those things can't be kept secret.
  The root post warns of the unstated repercussions of attending this "honeypot" conference. I want to know what those repercussions are.
12. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  They've done this to all of us, regardless of if we've been to the conference.
  Yeah. So you didn't answer my question at all.
  Except that when the security is compromised for the webshop or bank and their reputation is ruined it is the poor bastard that followed the advice NSA gave them that will be hanged for it. Everyone have to suffer but some people will be held accountable and none of them works for either NSA or RSA.
13. Re:It's a trap! by gnasher719 · 2014-01-20 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  If people who disagreed with the NSA were arrested, or lost their jobs, or were audited, or were deported, or disappeared in the middle of the night, we would know about it. Those things can't be kept secret.
  The NSA doesn't care whether you agree or disagree with them. They care about other things. For example, they might care that you once had a phone conversation with someone who once sat on the same bus as someone who is related to a terrorist. If you then disappeared, without having ever disagreed with the NSA, without ever having had anything to do with terrorists as far as you know, who would connect your disappearance with the NSA?
14. Re:It's a trap! by s.petry · 2014-01-20 07:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is wrong on just about ever level. Fact: The NSA is not a Law Enforcement agency, and has no authority to arrest or detain people. We know through leaks that they do provide data to various law enforcement agencies, then those agencies have been instructed to (illegally) reconstruct the data to keep the NSA out of the picture. We know the NSA provided data to the IRS who then audited political groups.
  I can see questioning the use of "honeypot conference", or lacking knowledge of what crossing them would lead to. I don't agree with you painting them as innocent because we have enough facts to know they are not innocent. How guilty they are is a valid question.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
15. Re:It's a trap! by Fnord666 · 2014-01-20 07:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  If people who disagreed with the NSA were arrested, or lost their jobs, or were audited, or were deported, or disappeared in the middle of the night, we would know about it. Those things can't be kept secret.
  The root post warns of the unstated repercussions of attending this "honeypot" conference. I want to know what those repercussions are.
  You mean like when people who develop encrypted messaging systems or encrypted phone applications get added to watch lists and get harassed every time they enter the country even though they are citizens?
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
16. Re:It's a trap! by Sarten-X · 2014-01-20 07:29 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The media companies have been lying for their own profit for far longer and far more frequently than the NSA.
  I'm not particularly inclined to trust anybody affirming or denying anything outright. None of it can be independently verified.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
17. Re:It's a trap! by icebike · 2014-01-20 08:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If people who disagreed with the NSA were arrested, or lost their jobs, or were audited, or were deported, or disappeared in the middle of the night, we would know about it. Those things can't be kept secret.
  Sure they can be kept secret. And we don't know how many people fall into this category. But any such losses would be simply lost in the local mystery that every town has, namely the huge number of missing persons.
  Take a look at these numbers reported by CNN using data from the FBI NCIC.
  There a a vast forest of people missing in which you could hide a lot of "disappeared" people. Someone quietly working in a field without a huge public exposure (whether white hat or black hat) could go missing from his basement lair, get reported, and forgotten by all but his mom and the world would never take notice.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
18. Re:It's a trap! by s.petry · 2014-01-20 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for your irrelevant, biased, and fallacy ridden input Cold Fjord. Now that you stopped using your personal karma poor account please create a new named account so that it's easier to ignore you.
  Your red herring and false analogy arguments are identical no matter how you log in. Go pound some sand and choke on your master's wanker.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
19. Re:It's a trap! by BobMcD · 2014-01-20 08:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm not particularly inclined to trust anybody affirming or denying anything outright. None of it can be independently verified.
  That's not true. We can witness the behaviors of the organization. Note how they started with denial, then moved towards excuses, and now have clammed up entirely. This tells us something about their behavior, and if we assume that behavior makes sense in context with the truth, then we get a glimpse of that truth as well.
  Sort of like the Keppler telescope.
20. Re:It's a trap! by icebike · 2014-01-20 08:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The alternate response is that if RSA did knowingly weaken commercial security, then you more or less have to stop trusting them.
  And if they didn't Knowingly weaken security, but rather did so unwittingly, then you also have to stop trusting them.
  If they are that incompetent they had no clue, they probably don't belong in the business.
  They only came out and told people to stop using their broken software AFTER Snowden made it known that it was compromised.
  NIST is pretty much in the same predicament.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
21. Re:It's a trap! by Sarten-X · 2014-01-20 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  That strongly indicates that something is being hidden from the public. It does not corroborate (or invalidate) the elaborate conspiracy theories being hyped.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
22. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  If people who disagreed with the NSA were arrested, or lost their jobs, or were audited, or were deported, or disappeared in the middle of the night, we would know about it. Those things can't be kept secret.
  Which is exactly why we are bitching about those things. They are happening and are not secret!
23. Re:It's a trap! by sjames · 2014-01-20 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Who knows, perhaps you'll eat some really bad shellfish, or wrap a steel cable around your neck and step on the gas. Or a bunch of illegal drugs will turn up in your car (No idea how it got there? SUUUUUURE!). Perhaps a few classified documents in your briefcase.
  I doubt it would be the same thing every time. Some interesting combination of accidents, suicide, unexpected crimes (complete with neighbors saying he seemed so normal), etc.
  And surely not everyone. The real crackpots will never be silenced, they do to much to discredit the NSA protesters.
  Note, I do not claim that any of these things have or will happen, only that when such things happen, that's how.
24. Re:It's a trap! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-20 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  The real crackpots will never be silenced, they do to much to discredit the NSA protesters.
  Good news for you then.
25. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  Hiding "disappeared" persons of any importance is not that easy. Especially when it comes to scientists or political activists of every stripe. At a bare minimum a scientist or researcher working on advanced technologies will have contacts with others working in the same field. The controversies ongoing today in the encryption world practically guarantee a full investigation if someone turns up missing. And today people tend to be obsessed with finding evidence of government misdeeds.
26. Re:It's a trap! by sjames · 2014-01-20 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  For amusement, at least some of what I wrote was drawn from OLD headlines. So you accuse me of being a crackpot for suggesting that something that happened over a decade ago is possible? (*GIGGLE*)
27. Re:It's a trap! by cavreader · 2014-01-20 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  Your link goes to a article that says it is "possible" the guy was put on a watch list but there is no actual evidence of him being put on such a list. Unfounded assumptions do not translate into facts.
28. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  RSA only removed Dual_EC_DRBG from BSAFE after NIST said that the RNG was no longer recommended. They set it up as default in 2004. Their weasel-worded "denial" says, in its most charitable interpretation, that they might have accepted $10 million from the NSA in exchange for setting Dual_EC_DRBG as the default cryptographic pseudo-random number generator for BSAFE, without them knowing that the algorithm might have had a back door. A few months after the first draft of NIST SP 800-90A was published, academic cryptographers began to note that there were some suspicious things about the algorithm as specified, and a year later Shumow and Ferguson showed that a backdoor for the algorithm was possible. So no one at RSA ever thought of the same thing? No one there thought that these magic numbers that feature in the algorithm, which are not "nothing up my sleeve numbers" or numbers whose use is otherwise justified by mathematical proof, might be suspicious? That indeed makes them look either clueless or naive, and neither quality recommends them in the security industry.
29. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 21:38 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it's possible. It can't be proven, because the damned lists are secret, which is the entire point!
  Jeez.
30. Re:It's a trap! by cavreader · 2014-01-21 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  You can see if you are on a no flight list by contacting a TSA officer at any airport. If you are stopped and searched beyond normal procedures you can also ask if you are on any other type of list that would prevent you from normal travel between countries.
31. Re:It's a trap! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-22 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Old headlines from prisonplanet.com?
colbert by schneidafunk · 2014-01-20 06:22 · Score: 4, Funny

Does anyone know if Steven Colbert is still headlining the conference?

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
1. Re:colbert by schneidafunk · 2014-01-20 06:25 · Score: 2
  
  *Stephen
  
  --
  Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
2. Re:colbert by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  No, he's right down the corridor at "TruthiCon".
Boycot? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:23 · Score: 0

Darn hipsters with your new Internet lingo.
TrustyCon by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:25 · Score: 0

Great idea. Now lets ruin it with a puerile name that one of Jon Stewart's writers might have come up with. People for whom security is something on which real $$ must be spent do not appreciate snark.
Sorry. Maybe it shouldn't be that way but that's how it is. Get a real name. Seriously.
Get rid of Samzenpus by kamapuaa · 2014-01-20 06:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

What the fuck? A boycot in Sand Francisco? Does Samzenpus even read this stuff?

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
1. Re:Get rid of Samzenpus by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-01-20 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Also "weaken ithe security"? And this was a pretty short summary...
  Sheesh - a third grader would've caught that.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2. Re:Get rid of Samzenpus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  Came out pretty lame, didn't it? The NSA has some people with skills.
3. Re:Get rid of Samzenpus by Desler · 2014-01-20 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  That one was actually added by samzenpus himself.
4. Re:Get rid of Samzenpus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  I would've missed that one (looks like a typical editing error, some leftover garbage) but caught the other two, which are pure spelling goofs. Now we know Samzenpus can't spell.
5. Re:Get rid of Samzenpus by Fnord666 · 2014-01-20 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  No, it was like that in the original submission.
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
6. Re:Get rid of Samzenpus by Frosty+Piss · 2014-01-20 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  No, it was like that in the original submission.
  So what? Editors are supposed to "edit".
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
7. Re:Get rid of Samzenpus by Fnord666 · 2014-01-20 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  So what? Editors are supposed to "edit".
  GP claimed the typo was added by the editor. I was just pointing out that it was already there in the submission and the editor just failed to take it out, that's all.
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
8. Re:Get rid of Samzenpus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  GP claimed the typo was added by the editor. I was just pointing out that it was already there in the submission and the editor just failed.
9. Re:Get rid of Samzenpus by AmiMoJo · 2014-01-21 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Also, why don't spell checkers cope with names or common phrases made or more than one word yet?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Factions split by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:29 · Score: 0

The factions are splitting.
In an already murky field, people and technology-wise, entropy appears to be accelerating. Or perhaps, this is a normal response in any field where fairly wholesale consensus, divides. Aside from that, can anyone tell me why security researchers wouldn't be boycotting the RSA conference necessarily? Is this RSA 'disclosure, overblown in infosec circles? (I wouldn't think so ...) Or, would those lacking any particular ethics not really care one way or the other. Mouths to feed and all that...
Bender is relevant here by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:30 · Score: 0

"I'm gonna go build my own theme park, with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the park!"
Not a Tony Bennett fan, eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:40 · Score: 1

I left my shart in Sand Francisco.
My own conference... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:46 · Score: 0

Will they have blackjack and hookers?
Anybody else read that as: by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:47 · Score: 0

RSA Boyscout group sets up rival conference?
1. Re:Anybody else read that as: by SydShamino · 2014-01-20 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I read it as BSA Boyscout group..., then got confused and had to RTFS (I know, I know, I'm sorry) to figure it out.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Bylaw Number One by ThatsNotPudding · 2014-01-20 06:52 · Score: 2

No Government Spooks (nor their hand maidens).
Two many erorrs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 06:55 · Score: 0, Redundant

weaken ithe security? boycot? Sand Francisco?
The last two aren't typos. The author spells thus. And samzenpus failed to notice because paying attention and stuff? LOL.
Yay public education.
Spelling by wonkey_monkey · 2014-01-20 06:56 · Score: 4, Informative

The word is boycott.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Spelling by Just+Some+Guy · 2014-01-20 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  And San Francisco.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Boycott the RSA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 07:28 · Score: 0

I come from New Zealand
The RSA (Returned Services' Association) is an organisation of NZ Veterans, similar to the VFW I guess
If we bocott the RSA, where would we go for a drink on ANZAC day (25th April)
1. Re:Boycott the RSA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  don't most Kiwis go to Bondi to drink, sleep, eat, etc
Good for them! by memnock · 2014-01-20 07:30 · Score: 1

I hope the conference has a good turnout and results in something useful that pisses off the feds.

--
"To stop the terrorists."
1. Re:Good for them! by Intron · 2014-01-20 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry. They will be attending. And taking names.
  
  --
  Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
2. Re:Good for them! by cbhacking · 2014-01-20 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  Something else many slashdotters may be in a position to do is to vote with their dollars. Even if you can't actually attend or help fund one conference or the other, take note of which companies attend which. Follow the money, and promote those who don't agree with the actions of the NSA and, by extension, with RSA. If attending the RSA conference is a mark against themselves in the eyes of potential customers, fewer companies will attend. If the sponsors and attendees of the new conference get extra business out of it, they'll be better placed to keep doing it, and the next time something similar to RSA's bribe comes to light, their competitors will be more ready to take away their conferences and customers.
  Don't forget also that these conferences are networking opportunities. Everybody who doesn't attend the RSA con is missing out on the opportunity to hobnob with all those other attendees. Reward them for standing on principles, and for standing up for their customers. That's how the positive feedback loop which is supposed to encourage companies to behave well works.
  Disclosure: I work for one of the companies who will be at TrustyCon instead of RSA.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
TrustyCon by wisnoskij · 2014-01-20 08:14 · Score: 1

With a name like that, what is not to trust?

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
good old by d00m.wizard · 2014-01-20 09:34 · Score: 1

Sand Francisco [sic]

--
* A world imprisoned screams with pain There are no leaders you can blame Your avarice destroyed your sphere And the
Stephen Colbert his speech. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 09:39 · Score: 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7FTF4Oz4dI&feature=youtu.be&t=1m10s
Boycott the USA next time? by RR · 2014-01-20 22:12 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm becoming jaded, but I don't think the United States is a good place to hold a security conference. I know, this year the TrustyCon organizers have to accommodate previous arrangements, but next time they should hold the conference in a place less likely to arrest security researchers and harass pioneers whose work is featured in every computer on every desk and in every smartphone.

--
Have a nice time.