Slashdot Mirror


A Hacker 'Hero' Has Been Banned From Cyber Conferences After Decades Of Inappropriate Behavior (buzzfeed.com)

Several readers share a report: John Draper, a prankster hero to an early generation of hackers, used his status at cybersecurity conferences to arrange private meetings with teenage fans and a reporter where he touched them inappropriately, multiple men have told BuzzFeed News. The allegations are the latest in what has become in recent weeks an explosion of sexual misconduct reports that have roiled a seemingly endless list of industries, from Hollywood to the news media to the Alabama Senate race. As in many of those other cases, Draper's actions were well known to at least a core of people who had regular contact with him. Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak told BuzzFeed News that Steve Jobs once told him that Draper, an early associate, once asked Jobs to sit on Draper's back in the 1970s, an offer Wozniak said Jobs declined as being "out of the ordinary." But in the hacking world, where unusual behavior is accepted and often celebrated, there were few official steps taken to prevent Draper's overtures to unsuspecting fans. Volunteers who worked the annual DEF CON hacking conventions in Las Vegas recalled that one of their responsibilities was to separate Draper from his teenage followers. Draper's behavior drew attention at other conventions as well, where he was a frequent presence. Brandon Creighton, a long-standing volunteer at hacker conferences who was familiar with rumors about Draper, recalled escorting him from a private party after ToorCon in San Diego in 2007, though exactly why was not clear.

187 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. John Draper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    moar liek John Raper

  2. Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by OldMugwump · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't know exactly what Draper (Cap'n Crunch) is accused of, but I wonder if we (as a society) are crossing into witch hunt territory. Rape is rape, and rapists belong in jail. Flirting, making passes, and asking permission - when the askee is free to say 'no' - isn't criminal. Even if it's kinky.

    --
    "Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."
    1. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some people still don't get it...

      The problem is - when the person "asking" is in a position of authority, the person being asked doesn't always "feel free to say 'no'". And often the person "asking" uses their position to imply there will be negative repercussions if the other person does say no, or (as appears to be the case with Roy Moore) to use their position to bully the other person into silence.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The really shocking part is that they had to assign staff to keep him away from teenagers, but didn't actually ban him or anything.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then charge them with extortion or intimidation.

    4. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by chispito · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Flirting, making passes, and asking permission - when the askee is free to say 'no' - isn't criminal. Even if it's kinky.

      The summary and TFA make it clear these actions were directed toward teenagers and that he would offer to take them somewhere private for "'energy' exercises or stretches."

      It's not a witch hunt if event organizers for years have been trying to prevent unsuspecting people from falling into his traps.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    5. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well there you go then. The problem is authority, not the sex. I know which one I'd rather eliminate.

    6. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Train0987 · · Score: 2

      What position of authority was Draper in?

    7. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by chispito · · Score: 1

      The really shocking part is that they had to assign staff to keep him away from teenagers, but didn't actually ban him or anything.

      Yeah, the... fact that it was widely known and they would try to mitigate this stuff is really disturbing. I don't know if it was just being non-confrontational or they thought there was some benefit to having him around that was worth the risk.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    8. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      So how would you characterise the actions of the US gymnastics team doctor who told young female team members that he was performing a normal and necessary medical treatment on them?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    9. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      He abused pity and shame to keep people quiet, not authority ... he has none. He's a manipulator.

      I have to say the reporter was really dedicated to his craft though, getting on their hands and knees with a naked Draper in the room just for an interview. What did he think was going to happen at that point?

    10. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by whyyisthissohard · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Some people still don't get it...

      Literally EVERYONE understands your opinion, your motivated guess at reality, that you parade as an "argument". What do you propose? Endless witch hunts, or that all males finally be banned from any position of authority over anyone?

      And often the person "asking" uses their position

      often

      How do you know? Because this is the narrative that is repeated again and again? Or do you have some kind of running account from surveillance videos that you keep? Because otherwise you're basing your view of reality on hearsay. Here is something a lot of left-leaning people do not want to understand, something they "still don't get": weak people lose in this world and there is nothing you can do to change it. Even if you are a victim, you can not place all the blame on the perpetrator of the crime. You have to look in yourself and find a fault and bolster it against future attacks. Externalizing everything to make it solely a matter of (mob) "justice" is not how you get stronger. So it may be prudent to punish perpetrators, but the victim mindset is NEVER commendable no matter how badly a person suffers. You still have your life to live, get over your troubles and become stronger, or stop living. You aren't special for being a victim, the rules still apply to you, natural law is not suspended. When you have all these supports for the victim mindset the victim becomes further victimized because they are validated for whining and don't seek to strengthen themselves, instead they become paranoid and cry for more authority intervention. How convenient for the establishment that validates these people!

    11. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      Let's see:

      1) "teenage fans" - I didn't see a specific age range, but since they didn't specify "young adults", it sounds likely that some of these teens were underage, in which case inappropriate touching would definitely be criminal (unless you're an elected official or running for office in the US).

      2) "touched them inappropriately" - Likely if someone reported that, it means he didn't ask first. You could argue that touching equates to "making a pass", but I don't think that argument would hold up in court these days.

    12. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What kind of authority is he supposedly having? He's no teacher, he's no scout troop leader, he has no way of handing out any kind of repercussions whatsoever, what the hell are you talking about?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh c'mon, I can't get that all done before dinner, can't we at least have a quickie?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      I think they didn't want some old homo aggressively cruising for teenage dates because it's bad PR even when it's not in and of itself illegal.

      "These included him massaging men in public and urging them to come to his or their hotel room for private sessions. In multiple cases in which the men agreed"

      It's safe to say most of the men who went along with it and agreed to meet him in his room did it with their eyes wide open, you can assume some level of intelligence and worldliness at a hacker conference. The ones who were terribly naive got a nasty surprise, since draper obviously didn't really grok consent well (though he did understand the concept of stopping, as far as the story goes there was no rape).

    15. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why is it that it seems like society gets exponentially more outraged when MEN are the victims, and why is society more likely to believe them? All of the men who have come out to say they experienced these abuses have had their stories questions.

      I think it's intrinsic, misogynistic tendencies of those so ingrained to the patriarchy that they don't even realize their biases. Examining those can be uncomfortable. Instead, they'd just as soon spit out some bile about feminism and blame the victims.

    16. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are right, some people still don't get it...

      If you can't accept consent you end up with a situation where everyone is a rapist.

      I understand you are trying to speak about active coercion, but I can tell you that there is a legitimate fear that non-coercive encounters will be portrayed as such. Add in the fact that any sexual misconduct is often "guilty even when proven innocent", there is a real shitty situation.

      I am sorry, but there needs to be an equal emphasis on the ability to say no. Otherwise you are going to be seen as one of the loonies shouting "all men are rapists".

    17. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Feminism infantilize women.

      Jesus Christ you dumb fuck, are you so embittered about your tiny penis and lack of social skills that everything has to be about feminists?

      This is a man in his 70s, who made a routine habit of making inappropriate advances to underage teenage boys and the like.

      This has nothing to do with feminism, and it has everything to do with an old man who was using his waning piece of celebrity to make inappropriate advances and generally be a creepy old man.

      But go ahead, demonstrate how much of a butt-hurt dejected bitter loser you are by making this about feminists. Maybe because you're sad that the creepy old guy never stuck his fingers in your ass? Or maybe you're feeling guilty because he did?

      You fucking people who go on an on whining about feminists and SJWs ... you're assholes, plain and simple. And what you're defending is the right to be an asshole. In real life, if you go around talking like that someone is going to break your jaw for you.

      Your right to be an asshole isn't something to celebrate.

    18. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is - when the person "asking" is in a position of authority,

      So, in other words, a person should not be able to try to hook up or date anyone below their "strata"?

      That sound suspiciously like the caste system and we see how well that works out in place like India, eh?

      Look...real aggression is one thing, rape is rape, etc....but geez, the definition of this is going down to ridiculously low levels.

      As a guy, we all (mostly) know that hooking up with a lady is a numbers game. You flirt with and make passes, whatever you want to call it, with as many attractive women as you can, and out of that, you'll get hits.

      You get rejections too....but hell, is it now that any girl you hit on and get rejected, means this was an "unwanted sexual assault" on her???

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Some people still don't get it...

      lots of people want to please folks in power or folks who are wealthy because they want access to that power and wealth. Sometimes its about sex sometimes its about something else, really irrelevant. What it comes down to is are you willing to sell yourself out or not when an offer is placed on the table. Such is the nature of people and power YOU can't change that with any amount of legislation, awareness, moralizing, etc.

      There are lines and we need to be careful about where we draw them. Consent is a matter of degree, there are huge gaps between. "Seems interesting", "I want this person to like me for whatever reasons so I am going to go along with this even though I am uninterested", "I don't want to but it might have negative consequences for me if I don't roll with it", "I don't feel like I have a choice", "I don't actually have a choice", and "oh God oh God deliver me from this".

      Personally I think the issue needs to focus on the last two. The rest of those people need to learn to spine up or accept living as sheep.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    20. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Known+Nutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey dumbshit. Sexual assault, sexual abuse, rape, and sexual misconduct in the workplace are not partisan issues. Get that? Your straw man about banning males from positions of authority is retarded. You clearly do not understand the dynamics that play themselves out in abuse situations. You are the classic asshole that blames the victim -- "can't place all of the blame on the perpetrator"?? Seriously, what the fuck dude? Rapists rape. Abusers abuse. Do you think people choose to be victims of rape and abuse? Do you think they choose to place themselves in a "victim mindset"? When your daughter is assaulted, will you blame her? Seriously think about that. She was askin' for it, right?

      You sir, are a fucking asshole, and obviously part of the problem. You can politicize anything. You can make robbing an old woman a political talking point -- the old bag shouldn't have been there in the first place, right? She should have been home baking cookies, right?

      This type of constant and complete divisiveness will be the downfall of the US.

      "...these people." Go fuck yourself.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    21. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      usually the parents are the ones who sell them

    22. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Male victims are often mocked. Even boys molested by older women are told they're lucky to get some action.

    23. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's a semantic issue. I don't call slaves and people tortured into a mental state where they can't consent whores.

      Weinstein's "victims" had agency and gave consent. That's why prostitution should be illegal, so men and women don't get forced into making such choices.

    24. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've personally seen what Draper did. This was 20 years ago at XMas Con. Draper was a friend of a friend, and staying in our room. The guy frankly creeped me out and I wasn't very happy with it, but it was only one night, so whatever.

      Later that night I went back to the room for something, and found Draper lying on the back of a local hacker I knew. The hacker later described the weird "energy exercise" thing described in the article. The hacker was also tripping on Robitussin at the time, and not in his right mind. He thanked me later for waking him up to what was happening, and was convinced Draper was going to rape him.

      Now, I didn't see any rape happen. And nobody in the article exactly described rape. But I sure wouldn't call this particular series of incidents part of a witch hunt either. What Draper did is seriously seriously creepy. I don't know if it is/was illegal, but what he did wasn't right and shouldn't be tolerated.

    25. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Translation+Error · · Score: 2

      It's important to keep in mind, though, that the lines for behavior that will get you arrested and behavior that will get you sued, fired, shunned, and/or asked to leave and not come back aren't and shouldn't be the same.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    26. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should not be but the level of hysteria around this issue. combined with "the internet never forgets" now has got to the point where arrested might be the least of your worries.

      One minor transgression is enough to get you hounded from your place of employment and essentially blackballed.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    27. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Draper as far as we know didn't rape anyone and the described behavior while extreme is more on the level of indecent exposure than sexual assault.

      Did he cross the line, if we are to believe the stories I'd say so ... but even so I'm also going to blame any adult who goes into his room for a fucking private massage for leading him on. Sometimes victims really do carry some of the blame, consent is not some binary fucking signal.

    28. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're trying top broaden the definition of power. Same with some of the Louis CK. Because people "look up" to you or even if you're popular/famous/powerful in your field doesn't mean people don't have the choice to say no, or report your behavior. It's a way to absolve people of their responsibilities. And yes, sometimes victims do have responsibilities. If you enable your perpetrator to continue to hurt other people by keeping quiet, especially for money, you are wrong and don't get the "but, but, but... victim blaming!!! Muh victims!!!" card. This halo of sainthood and complete lack of responsibility we seem to be bestowing upon the Sacred Victim is getting way out of hand.

    29. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by pots · · Score: 1

      Is that really what you think is going on here? People who don't agree with this position just can't understand it? Surely everyone would be on board if they could just "get it"?

      Allow me to suggest an alternative explanation (just one, of many): a lot of our behavior is dictated by what we fear. Some people are afraid of being exploited in this way, and this is a reasonable fear - it's certainly something which happens a lot, and it can be a bad thing when it does. So their solution is to try to eliminate all possibility of this occurring, by forbidding romantic overtures in any situation where exploitation could possibly happen.

      A second group has a different fear: they don't want to die alone. This is also a reasonable fear - it's certainly something which happens a lot, and it is almost without exception very bad indeed. This second group has their own solution - try to maximize romantic opportunities, so that when they finally do meet that special someone their hands won't be tied by some arbitrary restrictions.

      I'm not offering a solution here, I just find it appalling at how quick people are to adopt absolutist solutions when they're confronted with difficult or complicated problems. (Human interaction always falls in this category.)

    30. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Children are always the victim, it doesn't matter if you claim the child "consented." They didn't.

      Victims are not guaranteed to be conspirators. And the accusations in this case, if true, involve victims who were absolutely not "conspirators."

    31. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nonsense nobody should assume they can penetrate me just because we took our clothes off and touched all over each other. Why can't you just act like a normal human being and get explicit consent for each new touch and sexual act. "Hi can i touch your boobs". "ok one finger" "ok two fingers"

      I mean doesn't everyone have sex like this?

    32. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by lessthan · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right about hooking up being a numbers game and the number of tries increases the number of successes. However, you have to treat your hook ups as people. Would you want feel forced to have sex? Even if they were very attractive? In your first statement, you went from a very specific type of power imbalance to a spread-out generalization. If a person needs your good will for a reason, it is wrong to express a sexual interest in them. Two examples, if you are their boss or you are being interviewed by a reporter. Both situations place the other person in a position where their job depends your favorable cooperation. This is a specific set of circumstances. (I am assuming that you are evolved enough to know that making unsolicited sexual advances, e.g. sexual comments or uninvited touches, in any circumstance, is wrong) If this were a social strata thing, I couldn't ask out a security guard, simply because I'm an engineer. I can ask the guard out because I have no control over hire/fire decisions on his behalf, despite our social strata being different. The worst I could do, if he said no, would be to make a complaint against him and that could easily turn against me. Now, my boss's boss's boss (I think it is three levels, not really sure) couldn't ask the guard out, not just because my boss-cubed doesn't swing that way, but because he could conceivably have the guard fired. Power imbalance. It is true that at high values and really low values of power imbalance, the right thing to do gets murky, but then you can just fall back on the most basic ethics rule "When in doubt, don't."

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    33. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      He had a great deal of influence in the community, due to his living legend status.

      The same as other celebrities who do this kind of thing. They use their fame and the offer of access to the circles they move on, as well as the perception that their fame makes them untouchable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you really trying to suggest that Lewis CK, a successful guy in an industry where who you know is everything, had no power over women at the start of their careers trying to break in?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      So, in other words, a person should not be able to try to hook up or date anyone below their "strata"?

      No, but when they have influence over the prospects of the person want to hook up with they need to be extremely careful to say the least. Imagine if your boss started flirting with you, would you really not expect there to be any negative repercussions to turning them down?

      There are other issues here. It's a security conference, an odd one perhaps but still, it's not exactly a venue people go to in order to hook up. And it seems that some of the people he propositioned may have been under 18. What is the age of consent in that state?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    36. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, what it means is that you're not supposed to be trying to "hook up" at work if you have a position of power.

      Hook with people you don't work with. Easy!

      Reminds me of a friend... in her 20s she kept feeling guilty because she'd have flings with guys at work, who usually held higher positions than her, and then they all kept quitting their jobs and moving to different companies. Why? Because she only wanted to fuck the nice, decent guys! And it was only managers who had enough time to be doing it at work. Nobody ever made any accusations; nobody needed to! They had all had workplace ethics training, they all understood it is unprofessional to have an affair with a person below you in the organization. So they'd end up feeling guilty, or scared for their future aspirations, and quit. It is what decent people were already doing, and what they were already teaching in ethics for people that bothered to learn the ethics rules. That was in the 90s.

      Nobody cares what your jobs are, they care about the context; if you're only meeting the person for professional reasons, you do not have permission to hit on them! That is private behavior. If you want to flirt, you need to do it in a social setting, and by that I do not mean "business social" or "team building events" or "drinks with the team after work." Those are not actually social events, they are simply casual work events. They are still work events.

      And smart guys know that hitting on every random woman you feel attracted to will only get you a disease. That is not actually how the human mating ritual normally works. At all.

    37. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Flirting, making passes, and asking permission - when the askee is free to say 'no' - isn't criminal. Even if it's kinky.

      Flirting, making passes, a stolen kiss - these are criminal activities if the man making these moves is an unattractive nerd with no social standing.

    38. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The really shocking part is that they had to assign staff to keep him away from teenagers, but didn't actually ban him or anything.

      Yeah, the... fact that it was widely known and they would try to mitigate this stuff is really disturbing. I don't know if it was just being non-confrontational or they thought there was some benefit to having him around that was worth the risk.

      Society didn't care, and they would have been fired if they tried to stop it.

      Times are changing; people are starting to enforce the rules I was raised to believe were already the rules! It is going to take a long, long time to straighten it all out as a society.

    39. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yes. I think that's pretty much what I said, no?

    40. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am fairly sure you are not doing virtue signaling right, how are you going to claim your rightink credit when posting as AC?

      Wow, you've really drank the kool-aid haven't you?

      If you think not being an asshole is 'virtue signalling', you're pathetic. If you think actually not being a douchebag is done to receive 'right-think credit' (whatever the fuck that is) you're too stupid to live.

      So, are you actively engaging in "asshole signalling" to let all of the other assholes know you're one of them? Are you seeking "douchebag credit" for trying to ensure you get rewarded for being a douchebag? Because everything you say is shorthand for "hey, I'm an asshole and me and other assholes like to be dismissive of things while we pretend to be cool", because you're nothing but a whiny punk.

      You seem to be quite aggressively suggesting that being neither an asshole or a douchebag is virtuous. I assure you, you're wrong.

      So go cry in your pillow and suck your thumb, and hang out with the rest of the assholes and douchebags and whine about how unfair the world is to you.

    41. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Spacey thing seems to prove otherwise.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    42. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are lines and we need to be careful about where we draw them.

      I know a lot of people won't want to hear this, and I don't really want to say it, but all those crazy conservative flyover untermenchen call that line "marriage". And if this endless sex hysteria gets any worse, a lot of people will start drawing it there again.

    43. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Damnit, you had me going for a moment :)

    44. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Lucky_Strikez · · Score: 1

      Can we stop the stupid "Thing is thing" thing sometime soon? Along with the "This guy THINGS" Nothing is funny or cool when it's repeated millions of times per day. Especially if it came from Reddit.

    45. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What stories are you reading?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    46. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What about the famous actresses the Weinstein 'gave' all those parts to?

      They 'earned' those parts the old fashioned way.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    47. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      But you are an asshole..

    48. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Punchline:

      LouAnn: Gomer, that wasn't my belly button.

      Gomer: Surprise, surprise, surprise! That wasn't my finger either.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    49. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Fire them both. She's a whore, he's a whore bagger who tries to pay with company funds.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    50. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What they say and what they do are two very different things.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    51. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      As a guy, we all (mostly) know that hooking up with a lady is a numbers game.

      Actually, I would argue that a lot of people, particularly the Slashdot crowed, don't know that's how it works. The human interaction protocol isn't well documented. One can't simply RTFM. Even if you could, the rules are constantly changing. Most people are left to figure it out on their own. This leads to a lot of syntax errors, some of which are "awkward", and some of which are considered "misconduct".

      Of course, there are individuals who have mastered the rules, and exploit them to their advantage. Those are the individuals we need to be aware of.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    52. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by likerice · · Score: 1

      I get that, but I honestly don't know the answer to the following:

      How do we differentiate between (a) the "asker" using his/her position to make those implications (i.e., did s/he intend those implications) and (b) the "askee" perceiving implications that weren't there or weren't intended?

      Does it matter? I had presumed that it does matter because that's generally how society and law operate, i.e., we hold people accountable for their intentions and preserve "strict liability" treatment for a very small and carefully defined class of actions.

      If the intentions of the "asker" do not matter or if they're even simply less important than the perceptions or sometimes decades-old recollections of the "askee", then we should change current sexual harassment law and embark on a widespread public education campaign that tells people that the first ask by itself does, in fact, constitute sexual harassment when directed at a person with relatively less power.

    53. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      So she slandered him and got away with it? That sounds like about the most illegal thing of all the things that happened there.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    54. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Somehow you have a mistaken perception of what Weinstein did. He didn't say, "would you engage in this sexual act in return for a part in this movie," he used deception, surprise, and in some cases force. Technically what he did wasn't solicitation, it ran from assault to rape.

      Now as for "whores not being victims", that may be true in Amsterdam where it takes place under the watchful eye of the police and many of the prostitutes are unionized, but if you're frequenting prostitutes here in the US there's a good chance that they are under the violently coercive control of a pimp. For young non-American prostitutes there is a good chance that they are the victims of human trafficking.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    55. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      What "all"? There are none in the story.

    56. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      lots of people want to please folks in power or folks who are wealthy because they want access to that power and wealth. Sometimes its about sex sometimes its about something else, really irrelevant. What it comes down to is are you willing to sell yourself out or not when an offer is placed on the table.

      There are definitely people who want to cozy up to people with power or wealth by being a yes-man or tolerating distasteful things. There are even special words for these people - sycophant, lickspittle, bootlicker, lackey, brown-noser, suck-up - take your pick. Are you suggesting that the people bringing allegations of harassment are mostly sycophants who decided to back out of the implied deal? I honestly can't figure out what else you could mean by that paragraph.

      Such is the nature of people and power YOU can't change that with any amount of legislation, awareness, moralizing, etc.

      Murder and thievery will also always exist, and no amount of legislation, awareness, moralizing, etc will ever get rid of them. Are you saying that those actions should also carry no penalties? If they should carry penalties, why shouldn't abuse of power/wealth/status carry a penalty?

      There are lines and we need to be careful about where we draw them. Consent is a matter of degree, there are huge gaps between. "Seems interesting", "I want this person to like me for whatever reasons so I am going to go along with this even though I am uninterested", "I don't want to but it might have negative consequences for me if I don't roll with it", "I don't feel like I have a choice", "I don't actually have a choice", and "oh God oh God deliver me from this".

      Personally I think the issue needs to focus on the last two. The rest of those people need to learn to spine up or accept living as sheep.

      Reactions 2 through 4 that you listed are just different ways of wording "peer pressure." I'd love it if people could toughen up against peer pressure and think for themselves more, but if you really think people can just grow a spine and say no to peer pressure that easily then you must be totally mystified by this whole social media craze. People aren't going to suddenly start ignoring peer pressure. And YOU can't change that with any amount of legislation, awareness, moralizing, etc.

      Some people still don't get it...

      Apparently.

    57. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      For about a week there were multiple stories about him on the front page of every paper and every general news site. Most of them were very negative. He lost his career, even edited out of an up coming movie.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    58. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      You get rejections too....but hell, is it now that any girl you hit on and get rejected, means this was an "unwanted sexual assault" on her???

      A straw man and slippery slope at the same time?! And they said it couldn't be done.

    59. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's such a ridiculous, outlandish claim, I just wanted to check.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    60. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by hey! · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, a person should not be able to try to hook up or date anyone below their "strata"?

      Depending on your definition of "'hook up" and "strata" the answer can be yes. For example, if by "hook up" you mean engage in consensual sex, and the strata occupied are "legal juvenile" and "legal adult", the answer is yes. If by "hook up" you mean "engage in some non-consensual sex act" then the answer is "yes" regardless of strata. If by "hook up" you mean "surprise a woman by showing her your dick" the answer is "yes".

      People act as if this stuff is incomprehensible. It's not. For the most part it's not even complicated. Rape is wrong. Assault is wrong. Extortion to cover up those things is wrong.

      What gets a little complicated is that behavior runs along a spectrum : perfectly polite, rude, legal but scumbaggy, misdemeanor assault, sexual battery, and rape. Often placing a particular act the correct side of a particular line can be tricky. For example it's not clear whether the Al Franken incident is legal but scumbaggy or misdemeanor assault. What Harvey Weinstein did rand along the line between sexual battery and rape, compounded with extortion and tortious interference.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    61. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by hey! · · Score: 1

      You should never take what a liar says at face value. He wasn't talking about friendship; he was talking about using his enormous power to ruin careers, which in fact he did.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    62. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Feminism infantilize women."

      A movement to give women power over their own lives, such as the ability to decide who they want to screw, is "infantilizing". Slashdot: come for the tech stories, stay for the brain-dead comments. Thanks for coming through.

      What the whoring commenters are not factoring in is Weinstein's willingness to destroy the careers of those who wouldn't sleep with him, or especially those who talked about it. It's not just about sleeping with him for the career boost.

    63. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by liefer · · Score: 1

      I'm one of those people who still dont "get it". I mean i get what you're trying to say, but its slightly more complicated than that. You may or may not realize that men and women don't really have the same criteria for picking mates (in fact, men usually dont pick at all, no matter how much of a stud you think you are.... Women appear to be the sexual selector in the human species, since you have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors). Women simply do not mate with men that have less power and less resources than them[1][2][3] If we have so little respect for women that we start to believe they are not capable of making decisions for themselves regarding sex (sexual revolution anyone?) then that means that every single male out there who have ever had sex with a female was simply abusing their power to take advantage of women Following that logic, doesn't that mean that a man who cheats on his wife with a very beautiful, young, woman is freed of all guilt? Since he's incapable of making decisions when influenced by her physical appearance? Yes. Yes it does. I hope you see how ridiculous this is As for the negative repercussions... If you, as a man, have ever approached a woman and been rejected you will know there are very real, and very severe, negative social repercussions to that as well. I'd even argue they, in some cases, even outshines the negative repercussions a woman might face when rejecting a man in power 1: Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. 2: Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind 3: Trivers, R. (1985). Social evolution.

    64. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      As opposed to Weinstein? Cosby?

      Your perception is broken.

      Did Weinstein or Cosby get media support, trying to make it a reveal about their 'heterosexuallity'? Granted that didn't fly, but they tried it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    65. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Then you are incorrect.
      Please tell me how anyone starting in comedy would ever succeed if a currently successful comedian--who is respected - told everyone : "not only is that person not funny, they're kinda bitchy".

    66. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's not what he said, that's what she said.

      Not being a whore, she ruined her friendship with him, but others didn't.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    67. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by hey! · · Score: 1

      It's not like there's only "rape" and "innocent flirting" and nothing in between. There's a lot of ground in between those, and many lines to be crossed. While there certainly is the potential for a witch hunt, I think it's good to talk about those lines and where they should be drawn.

      Unfortunately there's no way of doing that without inviting at least some public hysteria.

      One thing I think it's absolutely vital to talk about isn't just the behavior of people like Harvey Weinstein; it's all the people around him, men and women, who enabled him. The scale of his actions was only possible because of an army of people who decided to enable it to get worse because letting him assault, rape and extort was good for their careers. In a way I think those people are morally worse; at least no better. It's one very bad thing to have no control over your impulses, it's another thing to make such a callous calculation with the lives of so many.

      I suspect our problem isn't an obsession with sex; it's reverence for power.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    68. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Wait, so because *some* women may have engaged in consensual relations, all of the women he assaulted and raped are "whores"?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    69. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      Well if it isn't the penis expert. Tell me, how skilled are you? How many years of experience do you have?

    70. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm still not sure what exactly Louis C.K. did that was so wrong. He asked and they said yes, there was no coercion involved. A lot of people are trying to make him out to be some kind of sick sex freak, but the fact is that some women do like to watch. I have had girls tell me it's a fantasy of theirs.

      Claiming later that you felt pressured to say yes is a cop-out and an attempt to avoid personal responsibility. If you didn't like it, fine, but you did say yes. We used to be told, "no means no", now we also have to worry about, "I said yes, but I really wanted to say no"?

      I'm starting to get the feeling that some people really do think they should be able to go through life and never have anything unwanted or uncomfortable happen to them. That they should never have to tell someone no, and if you do say yes, but later wish you hadn't, then it was the other person's fault.

    71. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Real testable metrics. Is the crowd laughing?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    72. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It's a bad idea for anyone in a position of authority to shit where they eat. Bosses should never have anything other than a professional relationship with underlings. It has always been wrong for a Manager to proposition someone who works for him. Outside of that though, people should have some backbone. If you don't feel like being mauled then tell them "No, I don't want to be touched." Unless they're a rapist they'll get the point.

    73. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't think it's ridiculous or outlandish. It was all consensual. They weren't his employees and no quid pro quo took place. Inappropriate is not illegal and it's debatable if the behavior was even inappropriate. Some women like to watch and he asked, he didn't just whip it out.

      I'm assuming you're referring to power such as being able to recommend to a club owner that they promote a certain act or that they shouldn't let a particular person on the stage. Did that happen here? Did Louis make any promises or threats? No, he didn't. Did some women possibly assume that they could get ahead if they said yes, or that if they said no they would lose out on gigs? Possibly, but that choice was made by them. If they felt any pressure to say yes, it was self-generated. Saying yes and then later claiming you felt pressured and couldn't say no is just an attempt to avoid personal responsibility for their own choices.

    74. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by doom · · Score: 1

      The problem is - when the person "asking" is in a position of authority, the person being asked doesn't always "feel free to say 'no'".

      Check, but I can't find any mention of Draper actually being in any kind of position of authority. He's a hacker "celebrity", but not any one's boss.

    75. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Someone doesn't want to be hit on, you hit on them, sexual assault.

      But, how do you know they don't want you to hit on them, until you hit on them?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    76. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should just let people declare themselves juvenile and give them a nice badge to indicate it. Having sex with these people would be statutory rape.

      That way we can reserve the term adult for people who are able to say "stop, I'm leaving".

    77. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I'd agree except for people within the same "chain of command", so to speak, because that introduces a power element that can be very damaging to the recipient of these advances.

      In the case of Harvey Weinstein, for instance, nearly every potential or aspiring actress in Hollywood is part of his sphere of influence, because he wields great power within her chosen industry. He can literally make or break careers. This is why it's not so easy to decide for the women in question. There's always an implied threat of "I can ruin your career if you reject me."

      People need to be very circumspect about propositioning anyone in a position underneath them in any sort of power hierarchy. I'll stop short of saying "never" (it can obviously work out, such as with Bill and Melinda Gates), but I think it's fraught with potential peril.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    78. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's ridiculous or outlandish.

      You're wrong.

      It was all consensual.

      No, it was not. And really, given that, the rest of your comment is totally irrelevant apologia for nonconsensual sexual acts. You're rapey AF.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    79. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I suspect our problem isn't an obsession with sex; it's reverence for power.

      It's obviously both. People who say that rape isn't about sex are dumbshits. It's not only about sex, it's about sex and power, but if it weren't at least partly about sex, then it wouldn't involve sex. That's a lot of extra hassle, it's a lot easier to just beat someone up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    80. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      How do we differentiate between (a) the "asker" using his/her position to make those implications (i.e., did s/he intend those implications) and (b) the "askee" perceiving implications that weren't there or weren't intended?

      That difficulty is why HR seminars on workplace sexual harassment advise everyone to steer clear of the problem by not asking in the first place. And then, if the issue comes up anyway (because just normal social interaction shows that there is a serious interest/connection possibility), they advise one of the two to change jobs (lateral transfer, shift change, etc) so the "position" isn't an issue anymore.

      then we should change current sexual harassment law and embark on a widespread public education campaign that tells people that the first ask by itself does, in fact, constitute sexual harassment when directed at a person with relatively less power.

      You're about twenty years too late with that suggestion.

    81. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by liefer · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's ridiculous or outlandish.

      You're wrong.

      It was all consensual.

      No, it was not. And really, given that, the rest of your comment is totally irrelevant apologia for nonconsensual sexual acts. You're rapey AF.

      He may be rapey (i dont think so, but i guess you can make that argument), but at least he has enough respect for women to believe they are actually able to make life choices on their own. You dont seem to share that belief.

    82. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      He may be rapey (i dont think so, but i guess you can make that argument), but at least he has enough respect for women to believe they are actually able to make life choices on their own.

      No, no he does not. They chose to report Louis CK's sexual harassment, and he's arguing against the validity of that choice by lying about whether the activity was consensual (it was not.) They consented to come to his room, not to see his penis. Louis CK made life choices for them by misrepresenting his plans. Come on up and we'll hang out does not imply come on up and I'll whip my dick out whether you want me to or not.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    83. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you are confusing the dictionary definition of feminism with the actual reality of current day feminism, where you only deserve the benefits of ye-old-feminism if you are a "proper woman", meaning that you believe, parrot, and support only the "correct things" or else the pack turns against you (and tells you that you are suffering from internalized mysoginy for your different opinions).

    84. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      OK question for you:

      How large a power imbalance would there have to be before you's agree that a "yes" could be coerced?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    85. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Multiple women accused him of masturbating in front of them WITHOUT their consent. He admitted it.

      Don't take my word for it, here's a couple of sources from different sides of the political spectrum confirming it:

      http://www.foxnews.com/enterta...

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    86. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      He was widely condemned for trying to conflate his abuse with his sexuality. For decades gay people have had problems with people associating their sexuality with perversion, and he decides to come out at the same time as admitting to being a pervert.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    87. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      right, and businessmen who don't "ruin their friendship" with the local gangster to avoid having their businesses "accidentally" burn down are firemen.

      victim blaming is so much fun.

    88. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      I used to sometimes wonder what the combination of severe retardation and tourette's syndrome would look like. now i know, and wish i didn't.

    89. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Society gets more outraged when women/girls are the 'victims'.

      Not surprising you've been moddded troll. You've put victims in scre quotes as if to imply they're not victims. since the only thing you metioned is women, it seems you're implying that women are not or cannot be the victims. Not only that, yu're doing it on a story where men are the victims, giving the rather nupleasant overtones that men can be victims and women cannot be.

      Yuck.

      The dreadfully ironic thing is that it's only the rise of feminism and the willingness of women to speak out which has empowered men to speak out. This i what's interestingly different from previous times. Now it's not just wmen coming forward but male victims can too and they're not villified.

      And this is yes another reason why men should be feminists: it benefits men too.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    90. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Some people still don't get it...

      The problem is - when the person "asking" is in a position of authority, the person being asked doesn't always "feel free to say 'no'"

      Yes "some people" still don't get it. In the African Savannah, if you are approached by hungry lion that is in a "position of authority", you can't say "no". The problem with people who think as you do is that even in modern society, we are still animals and there are still predators. The predators come in many forms. This has always been the case in nature. You know what happened to all the living things that couldn't make wise decisions regarding predators? They died. You want to know what that's called? It's called Survival of the Fittest and it's why you and I are alive today to have this discussion. If you don't take responsibility for your position in the animal kingdom you won't last. Expecting a hungry lion to adhere to a command such as "stop being a bully" is absurd. We don't live in a perfect world and our safety is threatened by many things that's why we must use good judgment and protect ourselves.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    91. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Huh seems like there's no shortage of apologists for scum on slashdot!

      It would be a shame if you ruined your friendship with me... That's a solicitation, not an assault or rape.

      No, that's a protection racket.

      Their is a clear implied quid pro quo.

      Yes, just like a protection racket: give me what I want or lose something like your livelihood.

      The women that didn't 'ruin their friendship with him' are whores.

      So you think the men who paid off the mafia to avoid getting their business burned down are whores or some equivalent too?

      And that's ignoring the times he also used force.

      All I can think is that you are desperate to be able to abuse your power like him, and are just waiting until you have any. Gotta fight to keep the field clear and open for when you get some. aaaaaany day now.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    92. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It's obviously both. People who say that rape isn't about sex are dumbshits. It's not only about sex, it's about sex and power, but if it weren't at least partly about sex, then it wouldn't involve sex. That's a lot of extra hassle, it's a lot easier to just beat someone up.

      "it's a lot easier to beat people up"

      Yes, I'm sure that people into abusing power and humiliating people etc are strict rationalists when it comes to minimising effort. Definitely, because all these people must be 100% rationalists and therefore always work by simple, predictable rules.

      I mean if they just wanted to go for the "I am powerful I could take what I want",they would have simply taken all their money instead because that optimizes utility.

      IOW: u mad, bro?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    93. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure that people into abusing power and humiliating people etc are strict rationalists when it comes to minimising effort.

      What's rational about it? I never suggested that anything about it was rational. But people do things for reasons, they don't just fucking happen.

      I mean if they just wanted to go for the "I am powerful I could take what I want",they would have simply taken all their money instead because that optimizes utility.

      Well, thanks for supporting my point. It's not about just power or control, because there's other ways to exert power and control. It's also about sex.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    94. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What's rational about it? I never suggested that anything about it was rational. But people do things for reasons, they don't just fucking happen.

      Yes precisely: you know it's ont rational yet you're STILL trying to reason through the acts of a person rationally even though you know they're not acting rationally.

      Add to that you have no idea what their reasons are: you're simply guesing.

      Well, thanks for supporting my point. It's not about just power or control, because there's other ways to exert power and control. It's also about sex.

      So what you are saying is tht if there are multiple ways to do something then someone you claim is irrational will always pick one and never another?

      oookay...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    95. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Someone accuses me of rape, I go straight to the police. Either they're telling the truth, in which case I need to take the punishment, or they're a lying piece of shit that can try and talk their way out of a charge of fraud and/or wasting police time.

      Would love to hear the HR response to that - when I was approached in sexual terms by a female underling the HR guidance was, "Well, it's all down to how you feel about the approach."

    96. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by liefer · · Score: 1

      He may be rapey (i dont think so, but i guess you can make that argument), but at least he has enough respect for women to believe they are actually able to make life choices on their own.

      No, no he does not. They chose to report Louis CK's sexual harassment, and he's arguing against the validity of that choice by lying about whether the activity was consensual (it was not.) They consented to come to his room, not to see his penis. Louis CK made life choices for them by misrepresenting his plans. Come on up and we'll hang out does not imply come on up and I'll whip my dick out whether you want me to or not.

      I understand people on this site may not exactly be masters of social interactions, but when a stranger of the opposite sex asks you, late at night, after showing a clear interest in you: "Hey, wanna come back to my place?" then yes, it absolutely implies showing each other your genitalia. If you think otherwise you're an idiot

    97. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by whyyisthissohard · · Score: 1

      Namecalling.
      Constantly halting speech broken with much punctuation.
      "You clearly do not understand...." (yet no reasoning whatsoever)
      More namecalling
      Profanity
      Complains about strawmen - then proceeds to make strawmen

      You don't analyze how you know anything.
      You are not a rational-minded person. You are a born and bred witch-hunter 'on steroids'. You become emotional in the face of calm argument. You don't seek solutions, you seek revenge. You are a brainless animal.
      This is a very partisan issue.
      Real, free, sane human beings vs. subhuman brainwashed consumerist tools.

      We need to exterminate you all. Kill you dead. You're nothing but remote controlled beasts. Your fate is sudden death and extirpation. Either your masters will grind you to dust and spread your remains over their fields after they have gotten their way with their inquisition (you will be utterly useless after the automation revolution), or we will stop you before it's too late.

    98. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by whyyisthissohard · · Score: 1

      Mature behavior from a woman is not "screwing".
      It's making meaningful lifelong relationships and starting a family.

      RRRRRRRAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH GET IN THE KITCHEN?????????? RRKEJRLSEKRJSEL WTFFFFFFFFFFFFF MYSOGYNIST!!!!!!!!!

      Cool off, psychotic liberal drones.

      The same standard applies to men for the same exact reasons.

      Which is more like an infant:
      Playing with a thing and then throwing it away after it bores you
      or
      Developing skills around a thing so it becomes a tool that serves you in your livelihood

      We aren't talking about just any 'thing' here, we are talking about the object of a great deal of our instinctual behavior. Something that factors into our nature on every level. Something that used to factor into our societies, something that was of critical importance to the development of science and everything else. The objects of a stable family.

      And then come the war-torn, impoverished, desperate people from which 'liberals' and 'leftists' were crafted. They actually have no idea of freedom like classical liberal philosophers. They just want more stuff and easier living. Because they're animals. So they sacrifice the family so they can slave away to get a bunch of baubles. They're less intelligent than a magpie with a nut-sized brain. Calling them 'animals' is an insult to animals. They're mind-controlled drones that the plutocracy uses as proxies for real human beings to forge an illusion of social consensus. When we stop falling for it and take action ourselves immediately, ignoring these brainless unreasoning "people", and destroy their masters directly, then the world can begin to be free.

    99. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I understand people on this site may not exactly be masters of social interactions, but when a stranger of the opposite sex asks you, late at night, after showing a clear interest in you: "Hey, wanna come back to my place?" then yes, it absolutely implies showing each other your genitalia. If you think otherwise you're an idiot

      It implies that they would like you to become intimate with them, yes. But going there does not imply consent for any act. You have to negotiate that some other way. If you can do it without words, that's great, more power to you. If you can't, then you have to do it with words. This isn't that complicated.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    100. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by liefer · · Score: 1

      If you think you have to use words to get consent from a woman to have sex with her, or that its even an option, you're not very successful with women. You're almost certainly a better person than me, good for you, i really do mean that... but im not interested in that. If you want to be very successful in this aspect of life, you have to be willing to sometimes push boundaries which means offending some girls. Calling it sexual harassment is absolutely ridiculous

    101. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you can do it without words, that's great, more power to you. If you can't, then you have to do it with words. This isn't that complicated.

      If you think you have to use words to get consent from a woman to have sex with her,

      If you think you read that correctly, you're wrong.

      or that its even an option, you're not very successful with women.

      I've been around the block a couple of times, and I have sometimes negotiated consent in words, and sometimes I haven't had to. It's your job to know the difference.

      You're almost certainly a better person than me, good for you, i really do mean that... but im not interested in that.

      Then you're a rapey piece of shit, and I really do mean that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    102. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by liefer · · Score: 1

      hahaha you panic because your sexual frustration is brought to light. Its okay. I understand.

    103. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Back onpoint. Not all the victims are, some are co conspirators (aka whores) that are now trying to obscure where their success came from.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    104. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'Sleeping your way to the top' does not turn into 'rape victim' on discovery.

      He offered something of value for sex.

      If he got it, the women ARE whores. It's pretty simple. Co conspirators. Victims are actresses who didn't get the parts, not the hollywood whores who did.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    105. Re:Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Do you have links to these "initial releases" giving him a pass?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Hacker 'hero' searches for backdoors in people by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Funny

    News at 11.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Hacker 'hero' searches for backdoors in people by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Phreaky.

    2. Re:Hacker 'hero' searches for backdoors in people by whyyisthissohard · · Score: 1

      You're an ape

  4. Re:Turning worm by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Tech still isn't a social matter. Posing and pretending is. And that's what Facebook is about.

    Tech is still what it used to be, we just shed the posers when Facebook and the like surfaced. And I guess both sides were happy about it, don't ruin that!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Can personally confirm that this has been known by RevDisk · · Score: 4, Informative

    For a minimum of a decade or decade and a half. Draper extensively hit on a friend of mine, who at the time was 18 or 19.

    Apparently, not all the teenagers were above 18. That's the part not being mentioned. He wasn't exclusively hitting on dudes under 18, but he just wasn't remotely cautious about the age of the folks he was hitting on. Usually people were NOT interested.

    1. Re:Can personally confirm that this has been known by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      I don't get it. The age of consent in Nevada is 16. Why would they need to be above 18? I get that the guy was creepy but is hitting on people at conferences illegal?

  6. Hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It worked for another hacker hero.

    1. Re:Hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You mean Assange, the guy who has now been shown to be playing friendly games with Russia against the USA?

      Hero my ass.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy by taustin · · Score: 1

      Those who idolized him before mostly idolize him even more now. Those that see that as a problem already hated him.

    3. Re:Hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Whoever released the emails IS a hero!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Seth Rich deserves a posthumous nobel peace prize for keeping the bitch out of office!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. Brandon Creighton, a long-standing volunteer by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Brandon Creighton, a long-standing volunteer

    With a name like that he should be a frequent contributor.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. Re: Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Considering the admission fees, I highly doubt that anyone under can go. I mean, can you see "Dad? Can you gimme 3k bucks, I wanna go to a hacker conference".

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:Creepy dude gets banned from semi public event. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Do we leave the security conference in alphabetical order or by beard length? Or do we have to wait for Stallman to go first?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Re:Been there - got the masssage by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    So, is he any good in bed? I planned to go next year.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. This is nothing new about Draper by t0qer · · Score: 4, Informative

    I used to hang out in the #2600 IRC, Drapers panache for young boys was being discussed as far back as 1998 according to my recollection.

    1. Re:This is nothing new about Draper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      panache: mass noun Flamboyant confidence of style or manner.
      penchant: (usually in singular) A strong or habitual liking for something or tendency to do something.

    2. Re:This is nothing new about Draper by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I remember it being pretty common knowledge that "Captain Crunch likes little boys" as far back LA 2600 meets in the early to mid-1990s.

      That does not make it okay. But this whole "surprise" is not exactly a surprise to anybody who has been around the guy, or involved in the computer underground for any length of time.

  12. Re: Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    Adults are not allowed in the kids section, without a kid sponsoring them.

    In other words, adults are not allowed in those sections.

  13. Re: Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here by Altus · · Score: 1

    If said teenage admirers were under age then it really doesn't matter if he had any formal authority over him or not.

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  14. Re: Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I suppose it is to those men who wish to use virtue signalling as some sort of attempt to win the hearts of the opposite sex. Unfortunately they will gladly be exploited and led on, and never realise that "nice guys aren't".

  15. Don't hit on people out of context? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you're at a hacker convention that is not the appropriate time to hit on a women (or a man). That's why the good Lord made singles bars. You're professional environment is not a dating site. How hard is that to understand?

    As for the rest of Utopia thing the Democratic Socialists figured that part out ages ago. The Danes are doing just fine thank you very much.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Don't hit on people out of context? by RedK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're at a hacker convention that is not the appropriate time to hit on a women (or a man). That's why the good Lord made singles bars. You're professional environment is not a dating site. How hard is that to understand?

      There is literally no right or wrong time to meet a significant other. In fact, a convention where people of similar interest gather, is probably a time when you'll meet people, exchange with them, and form bonds. Some of the those bonds could lead to friendships and more. Dating and meeting people is not an activity in and of itself. It happens organically during social activities of all sorts, of which your job, schooling, shopping are all a part of. To try and paint any non-professional bonds that happen in professional settings as wrong is simply to ignore human nature.

      That being said, harassment and assault should not be tolerated. But you're saying that flirting, or simply having a nice chat with someone you feel you're connecting with should be banned, which is downright ludicrous.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    2. Re:Don't hit on people out of context? by anegg · · Score: 1

      A hacker convention is a professional environment? What has happened to the world?

    3. Re:Don't hit on people out of context? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You're [sic!] professional environment is not a dating site.

      Yes, that must be why 40% of people have a workplace romance and a third of them end up married. :-p

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Don't hit on people out of context? by phorm · · Score: 1

      "There is literally no right or wrong time to meet a significant other"

      Well, I would say that when the potential significant other is an underage fan, there's probably NO right time...

    5. Re:Don't hit on people out of context? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you're at a hacker convention that is not the appropriate time to hit on a women (or a man).

      Tons of people hook up at professional conventions, and they like it that way. Who are you to tell them not to? We're not talking about consensual acts here, try to stay on topic.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re: Don't hit on people out of context? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Yes, what a great world it would be if being drunk was a prerequisite to meeting and interacting with romantic interests. What could possibly go wrong? How young, inexperienced, and unread must one be not to know that couples meet under all manner of circumstance?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re: Don't hit on people out of context? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I would have said instead that they don't qualify under any circumstances as a significant other.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re:Don't hit on people out of context? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      There is literally no right or wrong time to meet a significant other.

      On a pedantic technicality, tha tis true. I practice, no it's no the place to go hitting on people. Perhaps if you get on well, exchange contact details and so on then yeah ask that person on a date or something.

      What in practice happens is "theres no right or wrong time to meet a SO" gets translated to "I'll hit on eceryone who's hot and try my luck". There is certainly a wrong time for the latter.

      But you're saying that flirting, or simply having a nice chat with someone you feel you're connecting with should be banned,

      No he's not. The fact that you don't understand the difference between "hitting on" and "meeting your future SO" leads me to believe you're likely to wind up on the wrong side of these things.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:Don't hit on people out of context? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      If you're at a hacker convention that is not the appropriate time to hit on a women (or a man).

      Tons of people hook up at professional conventions, and they like it that way. Who are you to tell them not to?

      A convention ain't a singles bar though. Yes people make connections and hook up (or more!). That doesn't mean it's a free-for-all for hitting on people. And it matters very much how you do it. If you wait nutil there's a strong connection at the very least, that's hugely different from hitting on randos.

      If you wander up to someone and ask "are you freaky in bed" apropos nothing at all, that's something entirely different. Yes that was someone's actually someone's idea of hitting at someone at a tech conference.

      Trouble is if there's a gender imbalance, guess whether it's the majority or minority who gets hit on all the time.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Don't hit on people out of context? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you wander up to someone and ask "are you freaky in bed" apropos nothing at all, that's something entirely different. Yes that was someone's actually someone's idea of hitting at someone at a tech conference.

      Just to be clear, I didn't mean to say anything I didn't say. I meant what I said, and I stand by it. I didn't mean anything I didn't say, and I stand by that, too.

      Your need to read other things into what I said is a problem with your knee, not what I wrote. I agree with what you wrote, but what you wrote doesn't contradict anything I said.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Don't hit on people out of context? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      No mate, that's bullshit.

      Your post is not idependent of the post you were replying to. You omitted a large amount of the gamut of "hitting on" while saying it's OK. I read what you wrote and replied to. And what you wrote was bullshit.

      If you meant something else then you should have actually said it, rather than omitting it and hoping I'd figure out what you meant.

      You said essentially [sometimes it works] so who are you to tell them that [hitting on] is not OK.

      If what you write is not what you mean, it's nt my fault if I read what you wrote.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:Don't hit on people out of context? by whyyisthissohard · · Score: 1

      You don't get it.

      These people such as you are responding to are not not people, they are drones, machines. They take cues from the media because it's big and "impressive" and they model their thought after this impression. Their human spirit is crushed. The only thing human about them is that they can make human children, but those children only have hope for humanity when some one intervenes and protects them from their parents.

      The "sexual harassment" phenomenon is simply a ploy to destroy men's freedom and make sure there is a way to take down any man that displeases the plutocracy.
      Men are dangerous. It's men who make Civil War.
      Civil war as a huge danger to this system. It's crumbling but the mortar to restore it is en route. We need to rebel very soon or we are all going to become drones, and then destroyed utterly after human labor becomes obsolete to the plutocracy.

    13. Re:Don't hit on people out of context? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Your post is not idependent of the post you were replying to.

      That's correct. Let's go back and exhume this thread, since there's apparently a deceased equine that wants some flagellatin'.

      Don't hit on people out of context? (Score:3)
      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on 11-17-17 11:52 (#55571803)
      If you're at a hacker convention that is not the appropriate time to hit on a women (or a man). That's why the good Lord made singles bars. You're professional environment is not a dating site. How hard is that to understand?

      Okay, so there's the comment to which I replied. Here's my reply:

      Tons of people hook up at professional conventions, and they like it that way. Who are you to tell them not to? We're not talking about consensual acts here, try to stay on topic.

      I took exception to a statement which claimed that a professional event is not an appropriate place to hook up with someone, and I myself pointed out that we're not talking about hookups, we're talking about nonconsensual acts. Now you want to come on like a hard-on and claim that I'm ignoring context when I was talking specifically about context? Put that thing away.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Don't hit on people out of context? by RedK · · Score: 1

      Oh look, the Cultural Marxists and Reeeegressives are flooding the thread, a day late, hoping to get the last word!

      On a pedantic technicality, tha tis true. I practice, no it's no the place to go hitting on people. Perhaps if you get on well, exchange contact details and so on then yeah ask that person on a date or something.

      "Oh hey charming person, we're really hitting it off, but let's put all this on hold until a time we're not at some kind of event that others have deemed inappropriate for meeting each other"

      Always works right ? Trying to artificially put the brakes on to human interactions that are often spur of the moment is a good way to not end up very alone. The other person could change their view of you entirely in that moment, as you come off as lacking confidence or overly prude. Of course, this will depend on every person. A good tip when hitting it off with a person : Stop caring what others think. All that matters is what the person in front of you and yourself think.

      No he's not. The fact that you don't understand the difference between "hitting on" and "meeting your future SO" leads me to believe you're likely to wind up on the wrong side of these things.

      Because asking people out is literally sexual assault in your mind maybe ? I guess it works if you have that mind set. Too bad that's not how human interactions work. The other person is free to say "No" if they are not interested. Also before you go there, no need to be lewd or indecent, when a simple "Wanna go up to my room for a private chat" or "Wanna go get a bite just the two of us" is perfectly viable way to asking someone out.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
  16. These events have been way too lax in the past. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    The celebrity power pretty much keeps these people beyond criticism. The organisers have often been much more concerned with getting big names than caring about the regular attendees' safety.

    This might possibly have been prevented by someone taking Draper aside and telling him his behaviour is not acceptable.

  17. Rather ironic... by nuckfuts · · Score: 2

    that the whistle is being blown on man who became famous by blowing a whistle.

  18. Captain Crunch is how I knew him by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    With a whistle out of a Captain Crunch cereal box he owned the phone system at the time.

    1. Re:Captain Crunch is how I knew him by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Fuck John Draper

      Trying to be clever with a little subliminal messaging, eh? I'm on to you, John.

  19. Re:Turning worm by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Odd. It's not really what I observe. From my position it's still MBAs ripping off everyone else and playing people against each other to keep them occupied.

    If you have people skills, what the hell are you doing in tech? There's way more money to be made in management.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. John Draper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The issue with Draper is there are documented cases of his Yoga exercises with boys under the age of consent, 15 years old. This has been well known for many years and even though some of us tried to get the word out, too much hero worship surrounds the guy.

    The problem is that when you idolize someone as much as we did (Draper was a member of my group back in the day.) when they ask something weird, you aren't as likely as a kid to say no to your hero. We quickly learned what he was really like...

    The guy is just a dirty bum with serious mental issues who has a thing for young guys and doesn't keep the bar above age of consent.

    1. Re:John Draper by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "get the word out"? If you have documented cases of child abuse why didn't you go to the police???

    2. Re:John Draper by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Maybe. He did write a song about it called "Don't Stand So Close to Me". He might be an expert.

    3. Re:John Draper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't just go to the police with someone's story of what they experienced. That person has to do it, and you aren't going to find many teenage boys willing to go to the police to make a statement.

      The police don't give two flying fucks if they have to work for a conviction, they want the low hanging fruit.

    4. Re:John Draper by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      "You can't just go to the police with someone's story of what they experienced."

      You can't? That is news to me. I didn't know there was some rule like that. But you have documented proof that it happened! Did you even try to go to the police?

    5. Re:John Draper by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      But you had "documented cases". I don't get it. Why didn't you go to the police? Did you try?

    6. Re:John Draper by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Ah I see. So you did nothing. Good job.

    7. Re:John Draper by taustin · · Score: 1

      In fact, in some circumstances, when minors are involved, one can be required to go to the police with nothing but that claim, and face jail time if they don't. Teachers, for example, face brutal punishment if they ignore signs that student is being molested. Doctors, too. Even if the student themselves doesn't actually say something.

    8. Re:John Draper by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Why didn't you go to the police?

      The police *always* treat assault victims well.

      True story!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  21. Re: Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've actually enjoyed watching all these super nu-male feminist woman respectors all get outed as degenerates. Deep down we all knew only a born rapist would dedicate their lives to following around women showing everyone how much they care, listen, and believe.

    It's like a televangelist who thinks god is the only thing that keeps men from succumbing to the temptation of gay hairy buttsex with poop mess.

  22. john draper is infamous for his perverted ways by NynexNinja · · Score: 2

    I started going to cons in the early 1990's and John Draper "Captain Crunch" was always notorious for trying to invite newbie hackers to his hotel room for "meditation" sessions which included massaging and touching and whatever else happened if you allowed it go any further. The guy was always known to be a pervert. Everyone joked about it. He would literally go person-to-person through the crowd and invite whoever he could upstairs for a little one-on-one if you know what i'm sayin. Every con he would show up and do this. The best was at summercon 98 he showed up and did a talk about how everyone owes him thousands of dollars because he is so old school and how he invented the hacker scene. The guy was a fixture at every con. pumpcon, defcon, summercon.

    1. Re:john draper is infamous for his perverted ways by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Massaging and touching are definitely perverted. He must be the first man to ever invite people to his hotel room for such perversion.

    2. Re:john draper is infamous for his perverted ways by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Would you ever give a man a foot massage?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:john draper is infamous for his perverted ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Would you eat toejam from the feet of Richard Stallman.

    4. Re:john draper is infamous for his perverted ways by NynexNinja · · Score: 1

      it is when he rubs his boner against your back and grabs your balls

    5. Re:john draper is infamous for his perverted ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it's after you have his special energy drink unknowingly laced with MDMA, and then you get nearly naked (he insists) and do some Crunch-up's with him.

      The main position he put his victims into is on their back, legs and knees next to the ears, and this takes some time, he's very smooth, and slow.

      Then he gets between their legs, holding their ankles back, and in one quick movement he's violated you!

      Nope, it didn't happen to me, but it was close, and a few years later I heard the sordid details from someone who had succumbed to JD's Svengali like spell.

      Besides the RAVEs he was well known at (butt raper Draper), and the Tech circles, he also preyed upon late night DJ's in the Bay Area, that's how I met him in 1980.

    6. Re:john draper is infamous for his perverted ways by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      EBay!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  23. Re:Recent kickstarter update by taustin · · Score: 1

    My attorney is glad to hear it. He's an expert in ADA compliance, and he has a boat payment to make.

  24. Re:Turning worm by crgrace · · Score: 1

    Do you know anything about John Draper? He is practically a nerd archetype.

  25. Re: Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh gee. Did you copy paste that from YouTube comments?

  26. You can change it by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Make an economy where running out of money doesn't mean desperation. These aren't smart people using sexiness to get ahead. They're economically vulnerable. When the left talk about social justice that's what we mean.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. Re:Recent kickstarter update by taustin · · Score: 1

    Since the lawsuit will be filed by the federal government (plus, ADA rights can't be signed away), that seems a trivial objection. And the feds need all the good publicity they can get right now.

    Maybe two boat payments!

  28. You're there to hack by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    not to hit on women. There will be time for that later in bars. The women who want to be hit on will show up at the bars. The ones that don't, wont. Everybody wins.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: You're there to hack by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      So hackers who don't go to bars, male and female alike, are destined to die alone in your world then? How many people have to tell you that you are off base and how many times before you figure out that you don't understand the whole relationship dynamics thing?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re: You're there to hack by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So hackers who don't go to bars, male and female alike, are destined to die alone in your world then?

      You know what, sure why not.

      Not going to a common social venue does not give you the right to hit on people at an inappropriate time or place. Your boner is not the king, and the world does not bow down before it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re: You're there to hack by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      First of all this isn't about "inappropriate places", it is about a gathering of like minded people. You are thinking of funerals. Second of all I have no doubt you don't realize this but women are actually attracted to men too. It isn't the one way street you experience daily for many of us.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re: You're there to hack by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      First of all this isn't about "inappropriate places", it is about a gathering of like minded people. ... who are on the whole there to talk about tech stuff. Yeah you might meet your SO there, but it's not the place to just go hitting on people. Sure if you actually have a strong connection, xchange contact details and that sort of thing, or if its someone you already know well, then yes go for it but tread carefully.

      If you're treating it like a singles bar and just hitting on people then no it isn't the time or the place.

      WTF is the ludicrous equivalence being drawn between "you might meet a partner there" and "anything goes".

      You are thinking of funerals. Second of all I have no doubt you don't realize this but women are actually attracted to men too.

      OK, so you're talking the line "you don't agree with me therefore you must be stupid". Well, nice to see.

      Yes women are attracted to men. No that does NOT mean they want to be hit on all the time at a tech venue. Sometimes, in fact most of the time, they like the men want to talk about tech with any other random conference goer.

      It isn't the one way street you experience daily for many of us.

      Except it kind of is. Imagine you're at a conference with a strong gender imbalance where gender A is common and gender B is less common. Now lets say both are equally likely to spot someone they want to hit on and both equally likely to hit on someone in those circumstances.

      Which group, A, or B do you think will get hit on most?

      Now hypotheticals aside, I've been to many tech conferences and witnessed more than enough shitty behaviour which could fall under the general guise of being hit on. In practice it happens to women far more than men though I have witnessed it in both directions.

      Interesting thing thoguh, at the last conference I was hanging round a mixed but female dominated group. A few drinks were had and I guess the women in the group felt reasonably comfortable because then all the stories of incredibly skeezy hitting on behaviour (and other) came out. ALL the stories.

      Hold fucking shit. I had no idea.

      So yeah you might meet your SO, or you might be yet another guy hitting on her in a very long line already and she would rather talk about cool tech and cool hacking.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re: You're there to hack by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I didn't waste my time reading all that .... I read just enough to see that you really have no idea about woman. Guy A walks up and says something and it's creepy behavior because she isn't into him. Guy B, who she is into, walks up and says the same thing and it was cute, or sexy, or what have you. If you ask woman in bars they will also say they deal with a lot of creepy behavior, because just like at the convention there will be a lot of guys she isn't into and a few that she does want to hit on her. End of story.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re: You're there to hack by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Guy A walks up and says something and it's creepy behavior because she isn't into him. Guy B, who she is into, walks up and says the same thing and it was cute, or sexy, or what have you.

      Oh boy. That's not even wrong.

      Look, if you're interested in learning, there are a lot of people on the internet who have devoted many column inches to this, and are better writers than me.

      http://www.doctornerdlove.com/...

      If you ask woman in bars they will also say they deal with a lot of creepy behavior, because just like at the convention there will be a lot of guys she isn't into and a few that she does want to hit on her. End of story.

      Er right, so that guy who came up to someone I know in a bar and proffered a drink in his hand, then got very insistent and pushy, then left the drink behing and left---I guess she thought that was incredibly creepy because "she wasn't into him".

      You know either that or she didn't feel like getting roofied.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re: You're there to hack by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      If he left the drink behind and left he was much more likely trying to be nice, accept no for an answer, and show that he wasn't petty enough to take the drink back. If it was the actor she was hit for she would have guzzled that sucker then sucked him and rode him all night. Your friend sounds pretty stuck up if she found the guy "creepy".

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re: You're there to hack by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that you seem to know so much about an event you never witnessed and have only heard about second hand.

      If he left the drink behind and left he was much more likely trying to be nice,

      Or you know, it was roofied and he didn't want to touch it.

      trying to be nice, accept no for an answer,

      Yesh because being really really really pushy is "being nice". A clue: it's not.

      If it was the actor she was hit for she would have guzzled that sucker then sucked him and rode him all night.

      It's interesting that you claim to know so much about someone you've never met. Basically your lens is "women are shit" and you bend everything around yourself until that's all you see. You've never met this person. You don't know her. You have no idea what she would do, yet you're assuming that she is guaranteed to do the one thing that would confirm your worst suspicions. that says more about you than her.

      Your friend sounds pretty stuck up if she found the guy "creepy".

      You know, going up to someone you've never seen met and very insistently trying to get them to drink something you're carrying is very unusual behaviour for humans. Thing is if you act in an unusual way it can come across as creepy because people don't know what other ways you might act unusual in. People not acting in normal ways can range from harmless to very very dangerous.

      I also note, you didn't read the link I sent.

      Oh fuck I know what's going on! You got called creepy over something (or suspect you did). And rather than find out an uncomfortable truth like you did something that made someone unconfortable and it was your fault, you're blaming women instead up to an including inventing actions for people you've never met.

      You have to admit claiming that sommeone you've never met is guaranteed to act in a particular way is a pretty odd claim!

      Seriously, read the link (and the links therein). You're not tainted for life, hardly anyone knows, and it doesn't follow you around. If you start reading about why it happened, you will find out why what you did made someone feel creeped out, and more to the point you can avoid making the same mistakes again.

      Or, you can keep blaming the world for you not being hot enough, all the while completely ignoring those guys who look like an indside out toad but who are a like some kind of flirting ninja because they are in fact very, very good at reading social cues.

      (that's not me by the way, I'm not especially good at reading social cues)

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re: You're there to hack by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You aren't good at reading either. I made it quite clear that I have no problems with women, and understand them quite well in the general case, as well as having plenty of experience with the corner cases. When you start believing a few woman can speak for all of them you are sure to be mislead. No matter what some will say, what they like and don't like is not universal. It is always on a case by case basis.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  29. Re: Turning worm by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

    who the hell is john draper ?

  30. Re: Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Re: Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here (Score:-1)
    by Anonymous Coward on 11-17-17 16:19 (#55573729)
    [...]
    I'm sorry but since you are AC I can't believe you. If what you saw is true then stand up and put your fucking name to it. Don't hide behind AC. If you think what you SAW was wrong; then step up and speak out about it. You are apart of the problem.

    You are a hypocritical piece of shit. Please die in a fire.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  31. Re: Turning worm by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Informative
    The magazine "2600" is named after the frequency of the tone used to mark a long-distance trunk circuit as idle. Because there was no DC path on long distance trunks that could be used as a supervisory signal (like was available on the local loop), when one end of the trunk wanted to tell the other end that the line was idle it put a 2600 Hz tone on it.

    The "whistle" was not created by "Captain Crunch" the hacker, it was a toy prize included in boxes of Captain Crunch the cereal, from which the hacker took his nym.

    The tone was used to disconnect an existing long distance call. Your local end of the trunk knew it was still in use because your local loop was still active. The remote end thought the trunk had gone idle and disconnected the call from that point onward.

    When the tone was stopped, the distant end believed it was being asked to initiate a new call and started listening for the DTMF in-band signalling that would route the new call. This was not the same set of tones as a touch-tone phone produced, so a device called a "blue box" was used by the hacker to generate the correct tones.

    There were codes used to route the call via specific paths, so one game was to see how many trunks could get involved before the call was completed. Or you could force specific undersea cables to be used.

    This was all described in a paper published in the Bell System Journal, intending to inform other Bell technical employees of the internals of the system. Hackers discovered this information and designed a simple tone generator system (the "blue box") to take advantage of it. Bell attempted to scour all the libraries where this journal was shelved to remove that article, and it is hard to find a bound copy from that time period that still has the article in it.

    Because it was the local end of the call that maintained the record of called number and time spent on the call, it was usually a toll-free number that the hacker used. The only evidence of the hack would be extremely long calls to toll-free numbers.

    If you practiced, you could actually whistle the disconnect tone yourself. It was somewhat fun to walk past someone who was on a long distance call and then whistle 2600 Hz for a few seconds or even less. If they were engrossed in the conversation they wouldn't notice the whistle, but the phone system did. Their next words were usually "hello? Hello? Are you there?"

    That is ancient history to most folks these days.

  32. Re: Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

    Perhaps that is your experience, but I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that it is probably more common that they are abducted from their parents, or run away at a young age and are subsequently exploited.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  33. Re: Are we crossing into Witch Hunt territory here by cas2000 · · Score: 1

    I'm not 100% sure he's a rapist but (having met him during one of his visits to Australia in the 90s) I am 100% sure he's an arsehole, and a creepy one too.

  34. Re: what about the enablers? by junk · · Score: 1

    Because rumors are not convictions and with no official reports, there was really nothing to do. Imagine a world where rumors were all that was needed to get you banned from a place. Disinformation campaigns would be so much more powerful. Keeping Draper on a short leash was an effective way of protecting everyone from him without playing judge, jury and executioner in the absence of actual accusations or evidence of wrongdoing.