Post
DEF CON has banned a number of people from attending its hacking conference in Las Vegas, after they were named in the Epstein files.
Vincenzo Iozzo, Joichi Ito, and Pablos Holman have been added to the conference's public ban list. None of them have been charged by US authorities with offences, although documents released by the Department of Justice indicate they were in contact with Jeffrey Epstein.
The conference has not alleged criminal conduct, and the individuals have not been charged.
Being referenced in the documents does not equate to involvement in Epstein’s crimes.
More details:
@gcluley Which you have to balance with an organisation's ability to decide to ban anyone it likes based on any reason (apart from legally protected characteristics), or no reason.
Always a challenge.
And no, I am not defending those in the damn files. FFS. Nobody should have to be judge and jury on these allegations, this should have been decided in law and people prosecuted already, simple.
@revk I disagree that this is just a legal matter. Law is a 'punish the perpetrator by the book' thing where events and societies have different goals and standards.
Actions that are completely legal might still be unwelcome at an event or in a certain social circle and that is good.
A ban is not just a punitive thing, but a curation decision.
It's also something that should be applied more in these types of cases - if there's a rape allegation at a frat party, the whole frat becoming unwelcome at college parties would probably be more impactful in preventing future harm and helping the victim feel better than the current justice system.
I've said stuff that got me blocked or banned by people, and that's been healthy for me - I didn't always learn my lessons immediately, but it shows that someone had values/standards I wasn't meeting and they no longer wanted to associate. That's a strong message we should all be willing to both give and take.
No, not actually a challenge. You ban sex pests and abusers and people who associate with them.
People who whine and say "but innocent til proven guilty", you tell them to stay home if they don't want to come to your hacker party.
And then you've accomplished your goal twice over - both getting rid of the sex pests AND getting rid of the sex pest apologists. And the place is safer for it.
@JessTheUnstill @revk @gcluley yup - why it’s important that codes of conduct have a “we can kick you out for any reason whatsoever” clause.
@TindrasGrove @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Indeed, and in this case, well done.
This is a rare case of "mere accusations" being unusually credible because of the huge cover up of the evidence.
It puts organisations in the uncomfortable position of having to be judge and jury.
But they have the fall back of "we can ban someone for any, or no, reason", making it simple.
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley being banned from an event is very different from legal action. There is no judge and jury. Just a bouncer at the door.
Event organizers have not only the right, but the responsibility, to curate who attends the event. Based on any criteria whatsoever (hopefully in consultation with their legal counsel to avoid actual illegal actions, but this is where the code of conduct comes in!)
@JessTheUnstill @revk @gcluley
It's always wild to me when I see people defending the sex pests bc "it's just allegations" or whatever. But you KNOW they're not hopping in comments against transphobes or homophobes and saying "there's no reason to treat people this way" and actually standing up for queer people.
Like, my name isn't in any files. And yet the entire country is blaming me for shit some right wing asshole did last week and threatening to strip me of my rights.
All anyone wants to do with these people is kick them out of a conference bc there's actually credible evidence they did something wrong and every middle aged white dude is like "omg protect the white men!"
@CordiallyChloe @JessTheUnstill @gcluley To be clear, I am not defending anyone in these files.
In an ideal world there would not be a cover up and there would not be mere allegations, there would be convictions and people in prison. That is what needs fixing.
So well done banning these people.
But it should never have come up.
@CordiallyChloe @JessTheUnstill @gcluley know someone that was "wrongly accused" (not Epstein) and the hassle and stress it caused their life. The entire system geared around protecting the "victim" that was never a victim. This finally led to the supposed "victim" now being investigated.
It is RARE, but happens.
The legal system needs to protect people either way. It needs to be very sensitive to real victims. But any system can be abused by people who know the system will make assumptions.
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley
And in an ideal world, I wouldn't have to have this conversation where you ignore the point I'm making, most likely bc you know I'm right.
@JessTheUnstill @gcluley That is all well and good, until some day someone makes a false allegation about you, because they know this is how people react on allegation alone. Then the reason we have innocent until proven guilty comes to light.
The problem is the emotional nature of these types of allegations.
Personally, in this case, I'd side with banning those people, and an organisation has that right.
But in general, if you react to allegations, then allegations become a weapon.
@revk@revk@toot.me.uk
“innocent until proven guilty” is meant for the justice system in order to prevent convictions on the base of false allegations.
It is not meant as a general rule of life.
It is not meant as a ban on having an opinion about a person or a situation.
Being able to visit an event like DEFCON is a privilege not a basic right.
A decision to not give someone a special privilege or to not invite someone to your in-group does by no means violate “innocent until proven guilty”.
@revk Fella, I hate to break it to you, but "what if someone makes a false allegation about you" isn't some hypothetical scenario to trans women, it's just Tuesday. We're dealing with "how do we handle people who use the constant false allegations to whitewash their actual abuse" while you're wringing your hands about the idea that someone might treat you like y'all already treat everyone who isn't a straight white man.
@SymTrkl @JessTheUnstill @gcluley That is actually a point I had not appreciated.
Thanks for that.
My thought is false allegations are rare, but if they are acted on with no evidence and no legal process then become a weapon.
I had not appreciated that there is a whole community for which such false allegations are "normal".
It highlights my point to be honest. allegations should be that, private not not ruining lives until "proved". This is my whole point.
Not defending Epstein crap.
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Interesting. I wonder how much you are sweating about a "false allegation" upending your life.............
@reflex @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Not my life, well, someone could make such a false accusation and I am sure it would cause me a lot of issues. The point is, it should not, unless and until "proved".
But I know someone that was falsely accessed of something, and it caused a lot of problems, and stress. He was, finally, after a long time, and a lot of police investigation, exonerated. The accuser was using the system to cause him problems, and is now being investigated, finally.
Very rare!
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley if somebody shows up as a minor contractor, wage laborer, or is just mentioned I'd say you have something to discuss. If they're pals or business partners... then they would've been exposed to enough information to have cut their acquaintance short. It's not that hard to decide.
@wronglang @JessTheUnstill @gcluley If talking of the Epstein files, indeed.
There will be very few innocent people mentioned - e.g. some bricklayer.
I have no doubt the people banned in this instance are very reasonably banned.
These files have been covered up.
This is a huge failing of law.
Almost anyone in them is highly suspect.
It is the extreme case of "be judge and jury and decide on allegations alone". Very much so, because of failure of law to act.
But it is that, none the less.
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley
I can't help but feel like you're tut-tutting over a strawman argument here. DEFCON isn't reacting to allegations. They're reacting to available evidence. They've decided that the banned individuals' level of known involvement with Epstein is enough for them to want nothing further to do with them.
@EdCates @JessTheUnstill @gcluley
Yes, they are assassin credible evidence.
Well done, but they are NOT a court. They should not have to be in that position.
It is entirely up to them, and I quite agree with the ban.
Wow, did you really not pay attention in #metoo at all?
@JessTheUnstill @revk @gcluley I can’t believe it’s 2026, we have people who are openly involved with horrific sex scandals who are running a country, running major tech companies, and yet I still have to hear about the supposed damage of false accusations
1. False accusations are rare *now*, what if every accusation by anyone of anything ruined people's lives ?
2. I agree, and not good.
3. Yes, but that puts people in the position of being a judge, having to assess credibility which is not good.
4. Quite agree, as I repeatedly said, in this case I quite support the ban.
My issue is that as a general principle, innocent until proven guilty is good system to avoid creating more types of abuse of the system.
@revk @JessTheUnstill @gcluley
What do you think is the ratio of falsely accused people to actual fucking sex pests who keep getting away with it?
Maybe the problem is the prevalence of these types of incidents.
@Cassandra @JessTheUnstill @gcluley Not really the point.
The ratio now may be very skewed one way, and I expect so.
But if everyone reacted as judge and jury for every accusation of every type, it becomes a weapon and becomes something people can abuse in itself.
Hence my comment that, for these, I quite agree banning is right, but not as a general principle.
The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a good one, and abandoning it generally leads to problems in the long run.
![[a]mayz[ing]’s gaze](https://autistics.life/system/accounts/avatars/113/057/733/679/194/570/original/49d122ffe3a5f0cd.jpeg "[a]mayz[ing]’s gaze")
