Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

RSA Boycot Group Sets Up Rival Conference

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the try-us-instead dept.

Security 84

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

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Better Hope ... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46015777)

The all better hope that they don't have any skeletons in their closet or some of them will fork to another conference.

I completely support this move, but he who is without sin, etc, etc.

Re:Better Hope ... (3, Interesting)

psithurism (1642461) | about 10 months ago | (#46016683)

What other security researchers have accepted $10,000,000?

No one is "without sin," but there are some boundaries at which you stop being a normal person who has to bend his principles for the real world and become a complete dick who doesn't deserve to be a respected member of the white hat community.

Anyway, got my W2, so I have to go get back to making my yearly donation to the government; I sure hope they won't blow it on multimillion dollar bribes.

Re:Better Hope ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46020641)

I sure hope they won't blow it on multimillion dollar bribes.

Hey, a mere multi-million dollar bribe is about the cheapest and most effective means of subverting privacy and rights. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to get these capabilities without bribing a few key scumbags? You should be thankful the military-industrial complex is showing a little competency and efficiency for just once --- you're money is usually squandered by these goons in amounts that make ten million look like couch change.

Re:Better Hope ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46020833)

you're money is

P.S., I am applyin'gs for a Slashdot editor position.

Re:Better Hope ... (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 10 months ago | (#46022569)

$10 Million? Was this like in 1950 when $10 Million was a lot of money?

Re:Better Hope ... (2)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#46016713)

Well they could have started with a better name.

Trustycon sounds like an oxymoron right out of the gate, like someone's idea of a sick joke.

The problem we have is that the industry is defined now, whereas when it was starting out, there
were not entire infrastructures available for every task. Just getting a new mechanism employed by
web servers and web browsers has a huge inertia today. And the industry has made almost zero
headway in the task of getting people to even sigh e-mail by default, let alone encrypt it.

Now that email clients update themselves, rather than being installed and never touched
again, the single thing that get most people's correspondence out of the hands of governments and
advertising giants is opportunistic encryption built into the clients.

It doesn't matter how secure your algorithms are if people won't use it.

Re:Better Hope ... (3, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | about 10 months ago | (#46017367)

What is killing us is the industry settling for "good enough". SSL is "good enough", with the assumption that CAs won't be compromised. This was true back in the 1990s, but Diginotar and other CAs have shown that the single, ultimate trust model will fail.

Then there are devices. Even though I have a client key for one E-mail address, because iOS requires an Exchange server, no S/MIME for me unless I JB the device. PGP/gpg is doable, but some apps don't like being switched out and start glitching when they get switched back in. Android is better because of utilities that have better OpenPGP support (K9 Mail for example.)

Once app makers and Apple can be convinced to have usable encryption (OpenPGP and S/MIME) on the individual E-mail level, the big hurdle will be getting users to work on webs of trust, or even just signing/decrypting messages. This isn't rocket science, but security is oftentimes tossed in the back seat compared to virtually anything else. It can be done, though. Most people lock their doors before they leave for the day, so getting them to click on the sign/encrypt button may be eventually doable, given the consequences of not doing so.

Re:Better Hope ... (1)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#46017885)

Agreed, the CAs are a weak spot, which governments and spies can easily co-opt. Single point of trust also become something of ponzi racket, taking your money but still not sure of who you are, and surrendering the keys to the castle upon any governmental whim.

As for the webs of trust, I'm not sure that matters for most people. The concept is cool, but unless you are signing code or some such, it really doesn't matter in everyday life. When I send email to my family members, business associates, etc. and encrypt it by default, I'm certain their key is good, simply by the flow of communication over time.

For example, when I communicate with someone in India about ordering $5000 worth of carved jade, the fact that someone showed up at a key signing party with something approximating credentials and convinced other people, who I don't know, that he was who he claimed to be, really provides no additional protection. Its a nice idea, but unworkable in the larger world.

I submit that a web of distrust is equally effective. I may distrust a new merchant, I may distrust his keys, I may insist on samples, on references in other countries, I may insist on shipping confirmation of a bonded shipment by a carrier I choose from known companies, even specifying which office of that carrier is to be used, and payment by a money transfer method that affords me feedback without providing direct access to my account.

By distrusting every link in the chain, the materials, the merchant, the shipper, the banks, I build trust over time, such that, future shipments can happen with a simple encrypted message. I've essentially LEARNED to trust this unknown person.

This is the HUMAN method. It is the natural method, its worked for centuries.

Re:Better Hope ... (3, Informative)

zippthorne (748122) | about 10 months ago | (#46018297)

You know you can generate a certificate in Keychain and distribute that out of band, then send encrypted email using apple mail. Obviously both you and your recipients need to do this if you want to do anything more complicated than simply signing your mail.

The thing that I'm upset about is that Apple still uses the compromised Comodo root for the certificates they use to sign patches with...

Re:Better Hope ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46018695)

Even worse, there is no way to yank it out of the cert database. You trust what Apple trusts, or you use something else.

Re:Better Hope ... (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 10 months ago | (#46019691)

You can set the trust level on any certificate in the keychain to "never trust." The problem is that you are going to need to fiddle with it every time a new patch gets pushed out through the app store.

Re:Better Hope ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46017947)

Well they could have started with a better name.

What? Do you think people may confuse it with KrustyCon where all the Krusty the Klown merchandise is hocked to wholesalers?

Re:Better Hope ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46018235)

Trustycon is what they call the inmates in the county jail who are "good" enough to take jobs like cleaning the toilets, mopping the floors, helping with chow time and so on in return for a little bit of pay and some good time so they get out of the pokey a little bit earlier.

Re:Better Hope ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46019593)

that name actually has more vowels and less consonants than this one

See... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46015779)

They already hacked this post and made it Sand Francisco....

Not a Tony Bennett fan, eh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46015995)

I left my shart in Sand Francisco.

Re:See... (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 10 months ago | (#46017379)

They could move the conference to Sandy Eggo.

Re:See... (2)

dfsmith (960400) | about 10 months ago | (#46018381)

Sand Francisco: gateway to Silica Valley.

It's a trap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46015795)

Now the NSA will have pictures of everyone visiting the "competing" conference.

Smells a lot like a honeypot.

Re:It's a trap! (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#46015821)

What terrible things have the NSA done to people who attended previous similar conferences?

Re:It's a trap! (3, Funny)

freax (80371) | about 10 months ago | (#46015843)

Spy on them. Oh wait, that did this on all citizens on the planet ..

Re:It's a trap! (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#46015859)

What terrible things have the NSA done to people who attended previous similar conferences?

Convinced people things were secure when in fact it's significantly weakened to allow the NSA to spy on people.

If we're to believe news reports, we all suffer from much worse internet security because the NSA et al wanted to be able to monitor stuff.

So, internet banking, internet shopping, and pretty much everything is suspected to now have flaws in the cryptography.

They've done this to all of us, regardless of if we've been to the conference.

Re:It's a trap! (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#46015931)

They've done this to all of us, regardless of if we've been to the conference.

Yeah. So you didn't answer my question at all.

Re:It's a trap! (5, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 10 months ago | (#46016093)

You didn't ask me, but I can still provide an answer. "What has the NSA done to people?"

No frigging clue, because everything done is "secret". You can assume that they have done nothing, and I can assume they have done everything. Both of those are assumptions and neither could be proven.

So has the NSA turned over documents to Police agencies, employers, the IRS, etc.. that have led to investigations or damages? I believe we have enough circumstantial evidence to believe the first and third of those examples have happened. I'm not trying to patronize, but you can look at Parallel investigations and the IRS investigating non-profits for more information. It was impossible to tell if you were defending them or not, so you may already have knowledge of the subjects.

This is why we should all be demanding transparency from the agency and accountability from the whole Government. We don't know what they are doing because they label everything "secret". I find it logical to assume that if they are immoral in one area, we can assume that they are immoral in more areas. Wrong follows wrong, always has and always will.

The same concerns we have over the NSA should exist with a company like RSA who only apologized and told customers to change practices _after_ they were caught taking money from a government agency at the expense of customers. They never refunded a penny to customers either, so they are more than deserving of a boycott.

Re:It's a trap! (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#46016225)

You didn't ask me, but I can still provide an answer. "What has the NSA done to people?"

No frigging clue, because everything done is "secret". You can assume that they have done nothing, and I can assume they have done everything.

If people who disagreed with the NSA were arrested, or lost their jobs, or were audited, or were deported, or disappeared in the middle of the night, we would know about it. Those things can't be kept secret.

The root post warns of the unstated repercussions of attending this "honeypot" conference. I want to know what those repercussions are.

Re:It's a trap! (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 10 months ago | (#46016339)

If people who disagreed with the NSA were arrested, or lost their jobs, or were audited, or were deported, or disappeared in the middle of the night, we would know about it. Those things can't be kept secret.

The NSA doesn't care whether you agree or disagree with them. They care about other things. For example, they might care that you once had a phone conversation with someone who once sat on the same bus as someone who is related to a terrorist. If you then disappeared, without having ever disagreed with the NSA, without ever having had anything to do with terrorists as far as you know, who would connect your disappearance with the NSA?

Re:It's a trap! (5, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 10 months ago | (#46016391)

This is wrong on just about ever level. Fact: The NSA is not a Law Enforcement agency, and has no authority to arrest or detain people. We know through leaks that they do provide data to various law enforcement agencies, then those agencies have been instructed to (illegally) reconstruct the data to keep the NSA out of the picture. We know the NSA provided data to the IRS who then audited political groups.

I can see questioning the use of "honeypot conference", or lacking knowledge of what crossing them would lead to. I don't agree with you painting them as innocent because we have enough facts to know they are not innocent. How guilty they are is a valid question.

Re:It's a trap! (5, Interesting)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 10 months ago | (#46016513)

If people who disagreed with the NSA were arrested, or lost their jobs, or were audited, or were deported, or disappeared in the middle of the night, we would know about it. Those things can't be kept secret.

The root post warns of the unstated repercussions of attending this "honeypot" conference. I want to know what those repercussions are.

You mean like when people who develop encrypted messaging systems or encrypted phone applications get added to watch lists [infosecuri...gazine.com] and get harassed every time they enter the country even though they are citizens?

Re:It's a trap! (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about 10 months ago | (#46021205)

Your link goes to a article that says it is "possible" the guy was put on a watch list but there is no actual evidence of him being put on such a list. Unfounded assumptions do not translate into facts.

Re:It's a trap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46022565)

Yes, it's possible. It can't be proven, because the damned lists are secret, which is the entire point!

Jeez.

Re:It's a trap! (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about 10 months ago | (#46027797)

You can see if you are on a no flight list by contacting a TSA officer at any airport. If you are stopped and searched beyond normal procedures you can also ask if you are on any other type of list that would prevent you from normal travel between countries.

Re:It's a trap! (3, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#46017003)

If people who disagreed with the NSA were arrested, or lost their jobs, or were audited, or were deported, or disappeared in the middle of the night, we would know about it. Those things can't be kept secret.

Sure they can be kept secret. And we don't know how many people fall into this category. But any such losses would be simply lost in the local mystery that every town has, namely the huge number of missing persons.

Take a look at these numbers reported by CNN [cnn.com] using data from the FBI NCIC [fbi.gov] .

There a a vast forest of people missing in which you could hide a lot of "disappeared" people. Someone quietly working in a field without a huge public exposure (whether white hat or black hat) could go missing from his basement lair, get reported, and forgotten by all but his mom and the world would never take notice.

Re:It's a trap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46020173)

Hiding "disappeared" persons of any importance is not that easy. Especially when it comes to scientists or political activists of every stripe. At a bare minimum a scientist or researcher working on advanced technologies will have contacts with others working in the same field. The controversies ongoing today in the encryption world practically guarantee a full investigation if someone turns up missing. And today people tend to be obsessed with finding evidence of government misdeeds.

Re:It's a trap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46018069)

If people who disagreed with the NSA were arrested, or lost their jobs, or were audited, or were deported, or disappeared in the middle of the night, we would know about it. Those things can't be kept secret.

Which is exactly why we are bitching about those things. They are happening and are not secret!

Re:It's a trap! (1)

sjames (1099) | about 9 months ago | (#46019191)

Who knows, perhaps you'll eat some really bad shellfish, or wrap a steel cable around your neck and step on the gas. Or a bunch of illegal drugs will turn up in your car (No idea how it got there? SUUUUUURE!). Perhaps a few classified documents in your briefcase.

I doubt it would be the same thing every time. Some interesting combination of accidents, suicide, unexpected crimes (complete with neighbors saying he seemed so normal), etc.

And surely not everyone. The real crackpots will never be silenced, they do to much to discredit the NSA protesters.

Note, I do not claim that any of these things have or will happen, only that when such things happen, that's how.

Re:It's a trap! (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#46019443)

The real crackpots will never be silenced, they do to much to discredit the NSA protesters.

Good news for you then.

Re:It's a trap! (1)

sjames (1099) | about 10 months ago | (#46020177)

For amusement, at least some of what I wrote was drawn from OLD headlines. So you accuse me of being a crackpot for suggesting that something that happened over a decade ago is possible? (*GIGGLE*)

Re:It's a trap! (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#46036675)

Old headlines from prisonplanet.com?

Re:It's a trap! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46016613)

Asking for transparency from an organization whose entire purpose is collecting intelligence in an effort to protect a nation from actions detrimental to said nation is asking for a lot. This applies not only to the US but every other country in the world capable of connecting to the internet. Unless every security service in the world agrees to full transparency and ceases the intelligence collection activities I just don't see the NSA closing up shop. Transparency should predicated on where and from whom the information is originally collected. Data collected on the citizens of the country should adhere to the existing constitutional protections and be transparent as possible with the court system providing protection for exceptional cases that fall into the gray area. The government tried to implement judicial protection through the FISA procedures but this process has been derided as insufficient and no real alternatives suggested that would preserve the discretion needed to investigate cases related to national security. There is currently so much misinformation on the NSA capabilities and programs that public discourse has become toxic and finding any solutions to these problems is damn near impossible. If people want to hold their own conference on security let them but do it for the right reason and not because of some overblown and as yet unproven accusations. Of course that is unless someone does have hard evidence the government has purchased backdoor access in RSA products or backdoor access to any particular operating system or commercially available closed source application.

Re:It's a trap! (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 10 months ago | (#46017007)

Thank you for your irrelevant, biased, and fallacy ridden input Cold Fjord. Now that you stopped using your personal karma poor account please create a new named account so that it's easier to ignore you.

Your red herring and false analogy arguments are identical no matter how you log in. Go pound some sand and choke on your master's wanker.

Re:It's a trap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46016285)

They've done this to all of us, regardless of if we've been to the conference.

Yeah. So you didn't answer my question at all.

Except that when the security is compromised for the webshop or bank and their reputation is ruined it is the poor bastard that followed the advice NSA gave them that will be hanged for it. Everyone have to suffer but some people will be held accountable and none of them works for either NSA or RSA.

Re:It's a trap! (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 10 months ago | (#46015945)

If we're to believe news reports...

There's your first mistake.

Re:It's a trap! (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#46015983)

If I'm going to choose between who is more credible, the people providing examples and evidence of what they're doing ... or the lawmakers who keep braying that it's all legal ... then I'm afraid I'm more inclined to trust the news reports based on the leaks from Snowden.

By rather a considerable margin.

We already know the people defending this have lied about what they really do, which means they're not really deserving of any of our trust.

Re:It's a trap! (1, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 10 months ago | (#46016597)

The media companies have been lying for their own profit for far longer and far more frequently than the NSA.

I'm not particularly inclined to trust anybody affirming or denying anything outright. None of it can be independently verified.

Re:It's a trap! (5, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | about 10 months ago | (#46017027)

I'm not particularly inclined to trust anybody affirming or denying anything outright. None of it can be independently verified.

That's not true. We can witness the behaviors of the organization. Note how they started with denial, then moved towards excuses, and now have clammed up entirely. This tells us something about their behavior, and if we assume that behavior makes sense in context with the truth, then we get a glimpse of that truth as well.

Sort of like the Keppler telescope.

Re:It's a trap! (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 10 months ago | (#46017435)

That strongly indicates that something is being hidden from the public. It does not corroborate (or invalidate) the elaborate conspiracy theories being hyped.

Re:It's a trap! (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 10 months ago | (#46015979)

Convinced people things were secure when in fact it's significantly weakened to allow the NSA to spy on people.

Not sure what's the right thing to do, though. If the NSA tries that again on the RSA conference, wouldn't we want to have as many security experts present as possible?

Re:It's a trap! (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#46016017)

The alternate response is that if RSA did knowingly weaken commercial security, then you more or less have to stop trusting them.

Acting like they've had a change of heart, and promise to never do it again is meaningless.

In other words, the rest of the security community is turning their back on RSA for not being trustworthy -- and when you're a security company, that's a big deal.

Re:It's a trap! (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#46017081)

The alternate response is that if RSA did knowingly weaken commercial security, then you more or less have to stop trusting them.

And if they didn't Knowingly weaken security, but rather did so unwittingly, then you also have to stop trusting them.
If they are that incompetent they had no clue, they probably don't belong in the business.

They only came out and told people to stop using their broken software AFTER Snowden made it known that it was compromised.
NIST is pretty much in the same predicament.

Re:It's a trap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46021659)

RSA only removed Dual_EC_DRBG from BSAFE after NIST said that the RNG was no longer recommended. They set it up as default in 2004. Their weasel-worded "denial" says, in its most charitable interpretation, that they might have accepted $10 million from the NSA in exchange for setting Dual_EC_DRBG as the default cryptographic pseudo-random number generator for BSAFE, without them knowing that the algorithm might have had a back door. A few months after the first draft of NIST SP 800-90A was published, academic cryptographers began to note that there were some suspicious things about the algorithm as specified, and a year later Shumow and Ferguson showed that a backdoor for the algorithm was possible. So no one at RSA ever thought of the same thing? No one there thought that these magic numbers that feature in the algorithm, which are not "nothing up my sleeve numbers [wikipedia.org] " or numbers whose use is otherwise justified by mathematical proof, might be suspicious? That indeed makes them look either clueless or naive, and neither quality recommends them in the security industry.

Re:It's a trap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46015895)

But, but... you'll be on a list! You'll be in a database somewhere! You'll be blackballed for all government jobs! They'll make sure the IRS audits you this and every year! You'll get cavity searches every time you go through airport security! There will be black helicopters buzzing around your house! Your dentist will be forced to put in mind-control chips when he does your fillings! /end paranoia

colbert (4, Funny)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 10 months ago | (#46015801)

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

Re:colbert (2)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 10 months ago | (#46015833)

*Stephen

Re:colbert (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46018435)

No, he's right down the corridor at "TruthiCon".

Boycot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46015815)

Darn hipsters with your new Internet lingo.

TrustyCon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46015839)

Great idea. Now lets ruin it with a puerile name that one of Jon Stewart's writers might have come up with. People for whom security is something on which real $$ must be spent do not appreciate snark.

Sorry. Maybe it shouldn't be that way but that's how it is. Get a real name. Seriously.

Get rid of Samzenpus (4, Insightful)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 10 months ago | (#46015865)

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

Re:Get rid of Samzenpus (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 10 months ago | (#46015919)

Also "weaken ithe security"? And this was a pretty short summary...

Sheesh - a third grader would've caught that.

Re:Get rid of Samzenpus (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 10 months ago | (#46016085)

That one was actually added by samzenpus himself.

Re:Get rid of Samzenpus (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 10 months ago | (#46016411)

No, it was like that in the original submission [slashdot.org] .

Re:Get rid of Samzenpus (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 10 months ago | (#46016703)

No, it was like that in the original submission.

So what? Editors are supposed to "edit".

Re:Get rid of Samzenpus (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 10 months ago | (#46017659)

So what? Editors are supposed to "edit".

GP claimed the typo was added by the editor. I was just pointing out that it was already there in the submission and the editor just failed to take it out, that's all.

Re:Get rid of Samzenpus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46018929)

GP claimed the typo was added by the editor. I was just pointing out that it was already there in the submission and the editor just failed.

Re:Get rid of Samzenpus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46016325)

I would've missed that one (looks like a typical editing error, some leftover garbage) but caught the other two, which are pure spelling goofs. Now we know Samzenpus can't spell.

Re:Get rid of Samzenpus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46015993)

Came out pretty lame, didn't it? The NSA has some people with skills.

Re:Get rid of Samzenpus (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 10 months ago | (#46023761)

Also, why don't spell checkers cope with names or common phrases made or more than one word yet?

Factions split (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46015877)

The factions are splitting.

In an already murky field, people and technology-wise, entropy appears to be accelerating. Or perhaps, this is a normal response in any field where fairly wholesale consensus, divides. Aside from that, can anyone tell me why security researchers wouldn't be boycotting the RSA conference necessarily? Is this RSA 'disclosure, overblown in infosec circles? (I wouldn't think so ...) Or, would those lacking any particular ethics not really care one way or the other. Mouths to feed and all that...

Bender is relevant here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46015879)

"I'm gonna go build my own theme park, with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the park!"

My own conference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46016067)

Will they have blackjack and hookers?

Anybody else read that as: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46016071)

RSA Boyscout group sets up rival conference?

Re:Anybody else read that as: (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 10 months ago | (#46016145)

I read it as BSA Boyscout group..., then got confused and had to RTFS (I know, I know, I'm sorry) to figure it out.

Bylaw Number One (2)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 10 months ago | (#46016121)

No Government Spooks (nor their hand maidens).

Two many erorrs (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46016153)

weaken ithe security? boycot? Sand Francisco?

The last two aren't typos. The author spells thus. And samzenpus failed to notice because paying attention and stuff? LOL.

Yay public education.

Spelling (4, Informative)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#46016171)

The word is boycott [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Spelling (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 10 months ago | (#46016611)

And San Francisco.

Boycott the RSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46016579)

I come from New Zealand
The RSA (Returned Services' Association) is an organisation of NZ Veterans, similar to the VFW I guess
If we bocott the RSA, where would we go for a drink on ANZAC day (25th April)

Re:Boycott the RSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46019819)

don't most Kiwis go to Bondi to drink, sleep, eat, etc

Good for them! (1)

memnock (466995) | about 10 months ago | (#46016605)

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

Re:Good for them! (1)

Intron (870560) | about 10 months ago | (#46017013)

Don't worry. They will be attending. And taking names.

Re:Good for them! (2)

cbhacking (979169) | about 10 months ago | (#46017405)

Something else many slashdotters may be in a position to do is to vote with their dollars. Even if you can't actually attend or help fund one conference or the other, take note of which companies attend which. Follow the money, and promote those who don't agree with the actions of the NSA and, by extension, with RSA. If attending the RSA conference is a mark against themselves in the eyes of potential customers, fewer companies will attend. If the sponsors and attendees of the new conference get extra business out of it, they'll be better placed to keep doing it, and the next time something similar to RSA's bribe comes to light, their competitors will be more ready to take away their conferences and customers.

Don't forget also that these conferences are networking opportunities. Everybody who doesn't attend the RSA con is missing out on the opportunity to hobnob with all those other attendees. Reward them for standing on principles, and for standing up for their customers. That's how the positive feedback loop which is supposed to encourage companies to behave well works.

Disclosure: I work for one of the companies who will be at TrustyCon instead of RSA.

TrustyCon (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 10 months ago | (#46017171)

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

good old (1)

d00m.wizard (1226664) | about 10 months ago | (#46018039)

Sand Francisco [sic]

Stephen Colbert his speech. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46018075)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7FTF4Oz4dI&feature=youtu.be&t=1m10s

Boycott the USA next time? (1)

RR (64484) | about 10 months ago | (#46022681)

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

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?