Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

John McAfee Airs His Beefs About Privacy In Def Con Surprise Talk

Posted by timothy on from the now-take-larry-ellison dept.

John McAfee made a surprise appearance at Def Con to talk about privacy: he's for it. Trouble is, he says, lots of companies feel otherwise, and he took the stage to single out "don't be evil" Google: “Google, or at least certain people within Google, I will not mention names because I am not a rude gentleman, would like us to believe that if we have nothing to hide, we should not mind if everybody knows everything that we do,” he said from the podium. “I have to take serious issue with that.” The BBC has video. McAfee also announced his new complaints website, The Brown List. (Good usernames are still available, and your complaint can be about anything, not just privacy violations by humongous corporations.)

58 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by guygo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why would anyone listen to this paragon of paranoia?

    1. Re:Why? by redeIm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because his arguments stand on their own merits.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because you're not paranoid when "they" really are out to get you.

      If you can't understand this, try removing the paychecks you get from shilling out of the way and read again.

    3. Re:Why? by Smauler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Come on.... which arguments?

      This man has claimed shit loads of things that have been pure crap. Do you really need references?

      Of course privacy is important, everyone knows it's important, we don't need some washed up crapware peddler to tell us that.

    4. Re:Why? by radarskiy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Old man yells at cloud

    5. Re:Why? by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      Come on.... which arguments?

      How about where he demanded Intel take his name off that piece of crap AV they sell? I find no fault with any of this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    6. Re:Why? by redeIm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Come on.... which arguments?

      That "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is nonsense, among other things. That's an absolute truth regardless of who says it. Ad hominems don't exactly make for logical arguments.

      Of course privacy is important, everyone knows it's important

      Who is "everyone"? Because that's just false. I've encountered numerous people who think things like the TSA, the NSA's surveillance, DUI checkpoints, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, warrantless wiretapping, or stop-and-frisk are okay if they think it keeps them safe. Most people either think they're okay, or not important enough to do anything about. So who is this "everyone"? I vote, protest, and write to representatives based on my principles, but other people don't seem to do the same.

      Also, how could my GP comment ever be construed as a troll in any way, shape, or form?

    7. Re:Why? by Megol · · Score: 1

      That isn't an argument?!?

      If Intel bought the company and the product why wouldn't they keep using the name it already has and that still is associated with anti-virus programs? That would be ridiculous and potentially revenue loosing

      If they would stop using the name of a drugged-out criminal, pedophile, probably murderer it would be for PR reasons. But the public mass doesn't really follow the "adventures" of this idiot like we /. readers are forced to.

    8. Re:Why? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      His 'arguments' here are just vague complaints about Google and privacy with nothing informative or substantive added. You'd get better arguments by reading the comments on a /. post about Google with moderation set to -1.

    9. Re:Why? by redeIm · · Score: 2

      Fair enough, but attacking him based on his character is just stupid and won't debunk anything he said.

    10. Re:Why? by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think I like this John McAfee person.

      You must be young.
      You sound like someone who was raised in this surveillance culture we're now living in, and as such have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the societal, corporate, and government propaganda and conditioning, that you actually believe that 'privacy' is something only sought after by criminals and the mentally ill. Either that or you just don't understand that we're being surveilled constantly, with plans to surveil us even more than we already are.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    11. Re:Why? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      But the public mass doesn't really follow the "adventures" of this idiot like we /. readers are forced to.

      Forced to? You were required by the Slashdot license to click on the link to this story? Wow, the terms of service for your account really suck. I'm glad I got a lower account number. I didn't have to click through a TOS page like that when I signed up on this account.

    12. Re:Why? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      There are several whole generations coming up now who don't have a fucking clue.

      Yes, I know. Every generational cycle goes like that. I didn't have a fucking clue when I was 20 either.

      But the last few cycles have been filled with clueless fucks who think anybody who asks questions during a college lecture that won't be on Friday's test or the Midterm should SHUT UP because they're undermining the process. People who've bought into the system so far that they think brown nosing is a nested recursive process.

      We're glad you go that internship at Google (addressed to all the trolls flinging shit in this thread)

    13. Re:Why? by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, it's true. I used to believe that I grew up in the 'Land of the free, home of the brave' that we were taught we were living in. Then I discovered that the U.S. wasn't so much the 'good guys' that I thought we were (although we have our moments) and that there are people like the entire Bush family of traitors (as in George and G.W., going back for generations) that have been actively working to *undermine* the U.S. Constitution for their own ends since shortly after the U.S. was even formed into it's own independent nation.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    14. Re:Why? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed, they do.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    15. Re:Why? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Very much so. Asking question is not brown-nosing. It is having an actual interest in the subject matter and starting to thing about it independently. Anybody that does not manage to get there should drop the subject (and maybe college), because they will never be any good at it.

      I think "mediocre" is the new "good" or "excellent" in many fields. I am not sure about the reasons.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    16. Re:Why? by guygo · · Score: 1

      you have no idea what you're talking about. if I "must be young", you must be unborn.

    17. Re: Why? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      As much as the opposing members of Congress will allow. That is to say, not much, but more than nothing.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    18. Re:Why? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      If you're not a millennial or thereabouts, then, as I already stated, you must not be paying attention, at all. Get your head out of the sand, son, and take a good long critical look at the world around you, read the news (NOT just from U.S. sources, either, from the BBC, Al Jazeera, and other foreign sources) and see the evidence for yourself: You're being watched, monitored, and profiled by your own government, and by corporations, and so far it's not getting any better, it's getting worse, and the current generation of young people, having been born into this surveillance culture we're rapidly becoming, don't know the difference. And by the way I'm almost 50 years old, and I, for one, have not had my head in the sand the entire time, and I remember what it was like to have some modicum of privacy in my day-to-day life, pre-Internet, and what it was like to live in a world where it was unthinkable to have CCTV cameras everywhere, and where it was looked down upon to pry into other people's lives. But please, go right ahead and continue to live in denial if that's what makes you happy, so far as the government is concerned, that just makes you a 'patriot' and a 'good citizen' anymore (as they pat you on the head like a well-behaved pet).

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    19. Re:Why? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      "(as they pat you on the head like a well-behaved pet)"

      Don't you mean fondle your crotch in search of "weapons"?

    20. Re:Why? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      If governments and law enforcement had their way, that wouldn't be necessary because citizens wouldn't be allowed to posess anything more deadly than a small kitchen knife, and anyone other than police or military posessing weapons of any sort would be shot on sight and an investigation launched later. Also I'm sure all forms of martial arts would be outlawed as 'illegal killing techniques'. They'd probably also outlaw any forms of fitness training that actually builds significant amounts of muscle on people to keep them weak and compliant.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  2. Privacy is an illusion by cl3v3r · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A compelling illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. The metadata generated by even the most privacy conscious individual leaves a mark, and given the resources of an interested government, only the most dedicated living off the grid can escape their view.

    The only thing we have going for us, is that the vast majority of us won't raise the eyebrows of any government employees in our lifetimes. The sad part is that a lonely few will, and they'll be dealt with unfairly and harshly.

    The general masses don't have much to fear, but anyone who raises the ire of a nameless bureaucrat will.

    1. Re:Privacy is an illusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > A compelling illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.

      Absolute privacy is an illusion. In the real world privacy is a spectrum. Just because your friends know something about you doesn't mean anyone else should know it too.

      > the vast majority of us won't raise the eyebrows of any government employees in our lifetimes.

      Government is not the problem, imbalance of power is the problem. The lose of privacy is ultimately the loss of personal autonomy -- it doesn't matter if you lose that autonomy to a government bureau or to a corporation, you've still lost it to an organization that is more powerful than you.

    2. Re:Privacy is an illusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Privacy isn't the absence of information. Privacy is the consensus not to look. That's why we call it "respecting privacy". In that sense, privacy is dead, because that consensus doesn't exist anymore. When privacy advocates recommend ways of keeping ones data private, they are not trying to keep the data from a determined attacker. Instead the goal is to make violations of privacy more expensive and/or less useful, so that those who abandoned the consensus will realize that the "advantages" of abandoning privacy are imaginary because they result from people acting under the assumption of privacy when it isn't actually respected.

    3. Re:Privacy is an illusion by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A compelling illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. The metadata generated by even the most privacy conscious individual leaves a mark, and given the resources of an interested government, only the most dedicated living off the grid can escape their view.

      That's a pretty trite comment, if you don't mind me saying so. We already know that *if we don't fight for it*, then privacy is at best an illusion. Duh. If I don't enter the lottery, I can't win either. My god, are you sure, really? I actually have to enter? I never knew that!

      Privacy is a set of rights that must be demanded to be built into the system of government and society at large. It's one part of Liberty, and it's up to us to make it happen. We can make it happen through laws, we can make it happen through free software, we can make it happen through education, we can make it happen through threats and violence, etc. No single option is a silver bullet. All options can advance the cause in some small way. Figure out where your talents are then you'll start to see where you can help out (assuming you want privacy).

    4. Re:Privacy is an illusion by sirlark · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The only thing we have going for us, is that the vast majority of us won't raise the eyebrows of any government employees in our lifetimes. The sad part is that a lonely few will, and they'll be dealt with unfairly and harshly.

      Which means it falls to us as the vast majority to hold those who abuse their governmental power to account when they deal with someone unfairly. A duty, I'm sad to say, we are all falling woefully short of...

      And before anyone bitches about me just bitching, here is the first and most important step you can take. Inform Yourself! Check your putative representative's voting records, and compare it to what he's saying. Go out and but a newspaper from the "other side", to get balanced view of things. Challenge your friends when they make wild, or even just unsubstantiated, statements. A phrase I like personally (from CSI) "state your source". It's gentle, and mostly non-offensive, and goes down well as a pop-culture reference. And lastly, if you don't have the resources to fact check something, suggest it to a fact checking agency. They don't work for free often, but if you put something on their radar, they can at least look in to it when some suitably close paid for work comes in. Better yet, tip off the opposing politician's campaign, and get them to pay for it.

    5. Re:Privacy is an illusion by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

      If only media-whore McAffee were an illusion as well....

    6. Re:Privacy is an illusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lol, I totally read that as "punative representative". Now I'm not sure which word is more accurate.

    7. Re:Privacy is an illusion by houindcon · · Score: 1

      zactly.

    8. Re:Privacy is an illusion by kheldan · · Score: 1

      ..only the most dedicated living off the grid can escape their view

      At this stage of the game, the best bet for anyone wishing to be left the hell alone is the 'hide in plain sight' tactic: Leave enough of a digital footprint and paper-trail to appear ordinary, and this be left alone. At least for now, that'll work and will keep you safe, because they (governments, corporations) still don't have the processing capacity to bring the signal-to-noise ratio up to the point where they'd even see the patterns in that well enough to realize you are using surveillance countermeasures like that, and focus on you specifically. I still hold out the hope that this situation can be turned around before it reaches the point that everyone is always under the high-resolution microscope like that though.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    9. Re:Privacy is an illusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you thought that your Constitution was ever more than a meaningless piece of paper, I've got a Japanese internment camp to sell you, fully stocked with natural born US citizens.

  3. You have zero privacy now, get over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sun Microsystem's Scott McNealy made that prescient quote back in something like 1998. He may have been thinking partly about Google, but he was really talking about a trend that would occur regardless of whether Google was around to help lead the way.

    There's a lot of surprising consequences of the Internet, big data, mobile computing, and robotics that help and hurt people and professions and entire industries. It's an upheaval not unlike the Industrial Revolution in the first half of the 19th century.

  4. I don't get the point of this site by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    You can complain about literally anything? So it's the superset of all reviews sites/forums on the internet? How accurate do you expect the results to be?

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  5. Re:Why would DefCon have him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He may have done some drugs, but we all have. As far as murder, well, let's just say you'd have to be a complete idiot to think he killed anyone.

  6. Slashdotted? by cliffjumper222 · · Score: 1

    As of 9:32PM PDT the brown list is down. I would say it is slashdotted, but given the dwindling number of readers of this site and the server error it tossed out, I expect it's either been hacked, or is just broken.

  7. Black Fly in your Chardonnay, etc, etc... by Zanadou · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's somewhat ironic that after his rant against Google, I go to sign up for brownlist.com and I see a "Login with Facebook" link, along with pages and pages of 'Terms of Use' buried in a pdf file.

  8. Re: I have a complaint by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

    You 'ave a complaint!? Look at these shoes! I've only 'ad 'em three weeks and.....

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  9. Pretty impressive, actually⦠by Aryeh+Goretsky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hello,

    Most people would likely get thrown off the stage at DEF CON for using it to promote their business in such a fashion. Instead, Mr. McAfee gets applause and people lining up to take photos with him.

    Aside from that, the whole concept of simultaneously railing against the erosion of privacy while creating a web site that encourages people to share private information (without much information about how it will be safely secured) that is possibly libelous and may even be criminal at times is, well, going to be interesting. Especially with a FAQ which states things like " Yes, any entity can respond to a complaint. However, if the entity is not a subscriber, the response will not be featured in the official response section." and " It must not be possible for information on the site to be altered for any purpose."

    It is going to be very interesting to see how this latest business venture of Mr. McAfee's turns out.

    Regards,

    Aryeh Goretsky

    --
    Dexter is a good dog.
  10. Just like the McAfee AV software: by danknight48 · · Score: 1

    http://www.brownlist.com/
    - Slow
    - Pointless
    - Buggy

    Nothing new. The guy is still making crap software, for pointless projects.

    1. Re:Just like the McAfee AV software: by danknight48 · · Score: 1

      Just like Google+

      Just like Anonymous Coward's.

    2. Re:Just like the McAfee AV software: by danknight48 · · Score: 1

      It's more like your knowledge of English grammar, or lack thereof.

      I take it your American and cannot comprehend correct English. Let alone your inability to log in and stop yourself trolling.

  11. Peter Norton by antdude · · Score: 4, Funny

    He needs to show up too!

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Peter Norton by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Peter Norton has been dead for decades. He was inadvertently killed the day that they slapped a big piece of glass over him (similar to the cover glass in a microscope slide) to make a fresh Peter Norton(tm) bitmap for the new packaging.

    2. Re:Peter Norton by antdude · · Score: 1

      Prove it that he is dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... doesn't say so. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Peter Norton by antdude · · Score: 1

      Prove it. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  12. Complaints? by darkain · · Score: 1

    I've got a complaint... The site is slow as shit and buggy as hell. After a long wait, the homepage FINALLY loads. Click on anything, and get a spinning little "loading" thing pop up in the middle of the page, and then nothing happens. After some minutes, and error box popped up in the top-right corner of the page saying there is some technical issues.

    OH wait, this is McAfee we're talking about... yeah, shit's gonna suck, forgot.

  13. Re:He wasn't thinking of Google... by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

    Why not? I'm pretty sure it was my search engine of choice by some time in 1998. It was just better than Yahoo! (exclamation point is theirs, not mine). Not sure I ever remember liking Alta Vista. You couldn't trade shares in a company called Google, but something called Google was clearly gathering a lot of information and sorting it effectively.

  14. Maybe wait a little till judgement by gnalre · · Score: 1

    He may well be right...However John McAfee has a well earned reputation of drugged out paranoia, so I think I will reserve judgement for now

    --
    Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
  15. Re:The NSA is s spy agency by houindcon · · Score: 1

    Why is this modded down?? I hate the NSA as much as any of you, but his/her comment actually makes sense (tho I don't necessarily agree with it 100%)

    The info will be collected no matter what. We simply have no say in it. If you don't like it, create your own chips, write your own code, manufacture your own products. It's what is DONE with that info that we should be focused on.

    Casting a wide net is a good strategy. Giving the punk ass fuckin police and other gubment agencies freedom to do whateverthefuck they want with that info, including harassment, torture, black mail etc, is just fucking despicable.

    I for one, would prefer the NSA not exist, not collect data AND not share it, but let's get real... I also prefer that guns not exist, but guess what, they DO. And so I'm glad I have the freedom to purchase one to protect my family because it's already too late. GUNS EXIST. NSA EXISTS. Now let's deal with this shit.

  16. Re: The NSA is s spy agency by Khyber · · Score: 2

    Apparently you don't know how the fuck freedom of speech works, nimrod.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  17. brownlist.com very, very private by seniorcoder · · Score: 1

    Typed www.brownlist.com URL into my browser and after a long wait got:
    Server Error in '/' Application.
    Runtime Error
    Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons).
    [...and some more]
    Slashdotted?

  18. Considering his crimes.. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Such as banging underage girls while ranting for hours how bath salts give you massive boners, followed by having to bribe his way out of a murder charge that, and lets be honest here folks, there was more than enough circumstantial evidence to be fairly certain he'd be on trial now if it happened here, its really no surprise he is beating the privacy drum. I wonder if he sent something incriminating through Gmail and is now spooked?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  19. Re:Troll by russotto · · Score: 1

    You want to help restore privacy? Start by burning down the Google offices and NSA headquarters.

    That won't do anything. Step 1 would be getting CALEA and any similar laws requiring networks to be built in an insecure manner repealed. Once that's done, rebuild telephone and email networks to support easy to use end-to-end encryption. And make sure any storage devices encrypt all data at rest. Any services which require you to store data on a third-party server, or transmit through a third party server, unencrypted (or encrypted with a key outside your control) must be considered less private; that's not the fault of the third parties, that's just a fact.

    The idea would be to make bulk collection infeasible, and individual privacy violation difficult enough that the violator does actually have to work at it, and has a good chance of being caught at it.

  20. Re:The NSA is s spy agency by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    I don't have an opinion on Snowden, honestly. Part of me wants to call him a traitor, as he did reveal information about clandestine operations, but part of me thinks him a hero for revealing the same information about homeland-based activities. I love this country, but I hate its government with a passion... and, as I'm related to a federal employee, I'm not worried about this post landing me on any watch list; I'm already on most of them. God Bless America.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  21. Re:Why would DefCon have him? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but you're a liar.

    Ooh, ouch. Called a liar by a pedant on the internet.

    By contrast, your vilification of Mcafee is utterly baseless.

    I've never villified him. I have no idea, and no real opinion, on whether or not he killed anyone. I do have an opinion of those who - with likely little more knowledge of the actual facts than anyone else - go around spouting invective against anyone who dares to disagree with them.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  22. John McAfee? by mcvos · · Score: 1

    Didn't he retire to a life of sex and drugs, preferably of the illegal kind?

    I'm all for privacy, but I'm not sure if that argument gets more weight if it's John McAfee who says it.

  23. Re:The NSA is s spy agency by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    Have you forgotten that every dollar that exists is a debt to the Federal Reserve, plus interest?

  24. Google's 'Do No Evil' policy... by Tajas · · Score: 1

    Ever since Eric Schmidt was hired, fired and paid off, then brought back, Google's 'Do No Evil' policy has flown out the window with little hopes of return. He is more profit over quality and does not care about what that does to Google's customer's. They use nothing but Apple products in their daily lives, instead of Google products to improve, and this is one of many reasons Google has down so far down hill.