DEFCON 22 Needs Gov Spy Backing for Talk

Donate for the Cryptome archive of files from June 1996 to the present

16 May 2014

DEFCON 22 Needs Gov Spy Backing for Talk

> There are aspects of your submission that is entirely true,
> but they are also common knowledge. We can agree that China
> plays a large part as “boogeyman” it’s a popular
> discussion point, however we don’t think it’s the right
> fit for DEF CON main stage. Some of the reasons we feel that
> way are that your presentation is heavy on opinion, current
> news and personal perspective, but for it to be considered
> for the DEF CON stage we’d need more official intelligence
> such as .gov. backing it up.

Bill Blunden and Violet Cheung book recently published:

http://www.amazon.com/Behold-Pale-Farce-Inflation-Industrial/dp/1937584801

Subject: Re: DEF CON 22 CFP Review
From: Nikita Caine Kronenberg <nikita[at]defcon.org>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 23:30:07 -0700
Cc: mikko.hypponen[at]f-secure.com, george.ledin[at]sonoma.edu, matloff[at]cs.ucdavis.edu, chomsky[at]mit.edu, bblum6[at]aol.com, cryptome[at]earthlink.net
To: Bill Blunden <rbblunden[at]yahoo.com>

I will definitely let them know your response, because I just don’t think they knew a lot of that. You didn't mention the book in your submission or your bio, and so I think that will be helpful information for them to have. You also didn’t list a co-author, or any bio for them. It wasn’t meant to cause offense, but I think that there was just not enough information presented in your submission that told them your qualifications and experience and that was how they reviewed it as.

For what it’s worth, there were no other reasons mentioned, I was simply passing on the feedback that was left within the review board feedback. I’ve given them your response, and perhaps that will change their minds. I can not say, all I can say is from my perspective if I had any advice, ( for example if you were to submit elsewhere) that you should outline these things and add more to your bio so that reviewers could go into it with an understanding of what your qualifications are. We get ~600 submissions or more every year, so often times we have to go off what is on the submission, we don’t often go looking for the information due to the shear volume of CFPs we handle.

If they change their mind, have anything further to say, etc, I will let you know right away. Sometime we have situations like this where the content or speaker is not well represented in their submission, a matter of not showing it’s true potential until probed. In your case, that very may well be the situation, they might change their minds on your submission, I can not say, it might still stand that:

>Some felt, that the subject is a better fit for a conference
> where they’re used to and seek out discussions on cyber
> war and political strategy. As it stands now, the general
> feel is that the direction is turning against talking about
> “cyber war”

I’ve very little vote on the matter, but I thank you for taking the time to let me know and for counter-pointing your review. I wish you luck and again, if I hear anything I will let you know right away.

Nikita

On May 15, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Bill Blunden <rbblunden[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

> Good Evening Nikita,

> You understand that my coauthor and I just completed a 488-page book on the material about which I planned to speak? It contains somewhere in the neighborhood 1,000 references and I can profess a degree of expertise on this subject despite the fact that I'm not employed by the defense industry or an officer in the military. Also, my coauthor was born in China during Mao's cultural revolution and I think her input has been far more instructive than anything the people in .gov can offer.

> Have Ed Snowden's revelations taught us anything? That high-level officials are some of the most brazen and unrepentant liars of them all (e.g. James Clapper, Keith Alexander, President Obama). Good lord, since when, exactly, does .gov have a monopoly on credibility? Ed Snowden has taught us that they have far less than they'd like us to think.

> My findings are hardly a matter of opinion. In fact, my coauthor and I made a point of establishing a fact-driven narrative.

> If you doubt me, please feel free to contact any of the security professionals, researchers, professors, and former State Department employees that my publisher has sent copies to for review. I've cc'ed them on this message:

> mikko.hypponen[at]f-secure.com
> george.ledin[at]sonoma.edu
> matloff[at]cs.ucdavis.edu
> chomsky[at]mit.edu
> bblum6[at]aol.com
> cryptome[at]earthlink.net

> I hope DEFCON reconsiders. But the fact that such blatantly specious reasons were provided for rejecting my presentation leads me to suspect that there were other reasons not mentioned.

> Peace,

> Bill Blunden

> Below Gotham Labs

> --------------------------------------------

> On Thu, 5/15/14, Nikita Caine Kronenberg <nikita[at]defcon.org> wrote:

> Subject: DEF CON 22 CFP Review
> To: rbblunden[at]yahoo.com
> Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014, 5:31 AM

> Bill,

> The review board has reached a decision for your submission.
> Unfortunately, we will not be accepting your talk, "Chinese
> Espionage: The #1 Threat to Economic Security?", for DEF CON
> 22. If you submitted more than one paper, it may still be in
> review. Individual letters are sent out for each paper.

> Every year, I have to write a bushel of rejection letters,
> and it’s never easy to shoot someone down who has put
> together a CFP. I really respect the effort each applicant
> puts into their work. The work you do, and the willingness
> to share your knowledge with the community is incredible,
> and I appreciate the fact you submitted with us. In a
> perfect world, every submission would be accepted and it’s
> contents shared with the community. Each talk has the
> potential to be the building blocks for a new idea, the
> solution to someone’s headache, the itch that needs
> scratching, or the salve for someone else’s.

> In the end, I try to provide feedback for you so that when a
> talk is rejected you can get some sense of why and take that
> feedback to build a better paper. Hopefully, you can use it
> to submit it again to another conference, or again with us
> next year. Either way, Thank you again for the hard work.
> I’ve put together your feedback from the review board
> below.

> —————————————————————————————

> Some felt, that the subject is a better fit for a conference
> where they’re used to and seek out discussions on cyber
> war and political strategy. As it stands now, the general
> feel is that the direction is turning against talking about
> “cyber war” as there is only so much we can say from a
> non authority standpoint.

> The board brought up the issue of not seeing much in the way
> of references that lead them to feel confident that you are
> an expert or authority on the subject and that makes them
> wary. They also would have liked to have seen strong
> connections made, cite any economic research, or competitive
> studies.

> There was also differing opinion on some of the simplified
> points you made, one reviewers opinion was that China is not
> as “lawless" as you say. The Chinese government is very
> strategic in when they enforce the law, just like the U.S.,
> and the broad claims to that made them feel uncertain on
> your expertise.

> In the end, we’re sorry it didn’t work out, We’d love
> to see a good talk on this topic, but we find that’s it
> very difficult to find the right mix of presenter experience
> and content delivered. Thank you however for putting it
> together, it was an excellent submission and the detailed
> outline and supporting materials were appreciated. We hope
> you submit again in the future.

> ———————————————

> Thanks,

> Nikita Caine Kronenberg

> http://www.defcon.org
> [e] Nikita[at]defcon.org
> [e] BarkingKitten[at]gmail.coma
> [Cell] 206-280-2294
> [[at]] _defcon_