>>1069750
You aren't helping about his argument on the immaturity of some people.
There's a lot to be told about his arguments.
See for example this:
>Some privacy zealots will say, in the olden days, you could just "go out behind the barn" to have a private conversation. Of course, that was never true. Jimmy was always up in the loft listening. Mabel, the operator, was always listening on the phone line. We never had privacy.
That's just plain incoherent.
We have privacy between people as long as people agree to never share the info out of the said circle of people.
That's how privacy works and it has always worked like that.
Saying that we never had privacy is completely erroneous.
We had legal protection of privacy on all kinds of support. But we don't have it anymore today, Emails used to the legally protected, but it's not anymore, phone calls used to be protected (and even costed a president's mandate) but we don't have it anymore. Even the fucking post mail was protected, but none of this matters anymore out of security errors and paranoia.
This man has too much trust with the people he works with and only sees the good sides of his work.
More non logical things like this:
>I believe that we are in a post-hacker world. We still need innovative security researchers but we need professionals. We need to shed the "hacker" persona that is denigrating us.
The same professionals like intel that are adding pieces of insecure trash in CPU and other pieces of electronics ?
>We should strive to be professionals,
I disagree with him on other subjects but I'll quote Torvalds on this.
>The thing is, the "victim card" is exactly about trying to enforce your particular expectations on others, and trying to do so in a very particular way. It's the old "think of the children" argument. And it's bogus. Calling things "professional" is just more of the same - trying to enforce some kind of convention on others by trying to claim that it's the only acceptable way.
>if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their normal urges in unnatural ways.
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2
>making the Internet a safer place rather than exposing vulnerabilities that can be leveraged by criminals and terrorists
Security trough obscurity does not work long term speaking, hardware backdoors/security proves this more than anything else.
>This is why I'm going to encourage you to attend professional security conferences like Black Hat, RSA, SANS and others instead of hacker conferences.
We can thank him for sharing these.
>These recruiters are looking for security professionals not sketchy hacker types
Yes they are looking for competent people but even more they are looking for people who won't do a "snowden" and have a case of moral conscience and spread the horrible things they are doing to the public.
