Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bill Blunden's Rejected DEF CON Presentation Posted Online

Posted by timothy on from the what-I-was-going-to-say dept.

Nicola Hahn (1482985) writes "Though the Review Board at DEF CON squelched Bill Blunden's presentation on Chinese cyber-espionage, and the U.S. government has considered imposing visa restrictions to keep out Chinese nationals, Bill has decided to post both the presentation's slide deck and its transcript online. The talk focuses on Mike Rogers, in all his glory, a former FBI agent who delivers a veritable litany of hyperbolic misstatements (likely to be repeated endlessly on AM radio). Rather than allow the DEFCON Review Board to pass judgement as supposed .gov 'experts,' why not allow people to peruse the material and decide for themselves who is credible and who is not?" "Squelched" seems a little harsh (only so many talks can fit, and there's no accounting for taste), but it's certainly good to see any non-accepted DEF CON presentations made public.

8 of 40 comments (clear)

  1. Actually RTFA by bradorsomething · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a conjecture talk, I can see why they rejected it. Bill, if you happen to read this comment, I think your talk was refused because it uses a lot of "could" and "might" to build a global picture of corruption, landed back in the banking system and corrupt government, failed to point out any non-obvious outcomes or opportunities, and didn't suggest any ways an attendee could constructively effect or participate in the problem. Generally you can expect DEFCON talks to be based on hard facts, with bonus points when it teaches you something or shows you a technique or process you can apply later.

    The book plug at the end also seems like a split purpose for making the talk.

    1. Re:Actually RTFA by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is a conjecture talk ... it uses a lot of "could" and "might" to build a global picture of corruption, landed back in the banking system and corrupt government, failed to point out any non-obvious outcomes or opportunities, and didn't suggest any ways an attendee could constructively effect or participate in the problem.

      ...so in other words, it's perfect for Slashdot.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Actually RTFA by Minupla · · Score: 2

      Agreed, as a DC attendee I'd give it a miss, and if there wasn't anything on that was more interesting in the slot use it to fulfill some of the 3-2-1 rule of attending Defcon. The talk is an interesting read, and there are other confs I've attended where it would be a fit, but DC isn't it.

      I think the review committee made the right call on this one.

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
  2. Terrible Presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    The presentation is a bunch of conspiracy theory bullshit, chock full of pedantic analysis of out-of-context quotes from politicians and various other talking heads. There's no data, facts, or real references. It obviously should have been rejected.

  3. Re:it was rejected for obvious reasons. by databeast · · Score: 3, Interesting

    yes, because the vendor booths selling TShirts, make up the bulk of Defcon funding.

    you've never actually been to Defcon, have ya.
    .

  4. Re:it was rejected for obvious reasons. by ediron2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    My kingdom for some modpoints... someone mod this up.

    Black Hat = The Marketing and Money of Security.
    Defcon = The Tech of Security
    BSides = small con, feels like old Defcon.

    Don't get me wrong, there's some amazing researchers and tech funded by Black Hat money. An unlimited project expense account can let you do fun stuff like functional x-ray lithography as a reverse-engineering tool. But Black Hat isn't thousands of engineers, scientists, and hackers getting their geek-freak on.

  5. Re: Black market baby powder - Banks? by databeast · · Score: 2

    speaking from experience, it comes down to this. the people with a critical eye to all this stuff (like me) don't have access to the big picture. I can only speak to the stuff I've worked on personally, and it doesn't add to what people are telling us.

    Conversely, the people who *do* have access to the bigger picture stuff, have no vested interest in giving us the unfiltered truth (or any truth at all), so although they're in a position to know that's actually happening a little more clearly, we have no reason to believe that they're telling us anywhere near the truth of the matter

    (remember, Mandiant told us the Chinese Sky Is Falling for *years* before they finally decided to 'show their work' with the APT1 document, until that point, their whole proof was "Trust us, we see more than you do". The government wonks take the same approach.)

  6. Re:Disagree /w DEF CON decision. by databeast · · Score: 2

    so you've personally seen the other 600 submissions for Defcon this year, and can unequivocally say that this deserved to be at the top of the pack?

    No. this dude is just making a song and dance about being one of the 550 people who get a rejection letter every year.