I find this one the most worrying:<p>"In 2008, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) obtained a temporary restraining order to prevent a talk at DEFCON by three MIT students who had uncovered physical and logical security holes in MBTA infrastructure."<p>I mean, the IOS guy worked for IOS, so he was divulging information that Cisco paid him to obtain. HBGary paid Aaron Barr to research anonymous, so they have a case for him doing the same thing. However, what kind of case could MBTA possibly have against some kids who found problems with their infrastructure? I fail how to see how such an injunction was anything but unconstitutional.
I believe this falls into "doing it wrong".<p>Backing out because they <i>threaten</i> to file an injunction is to capitulate too soon. You're supposed to keep going until/unless they actually get an injunction, and then challenge it (plus, civil lawsuit for loss of income due to the injunction once it's rescinded).<p>BlackHat/BSidesLV/DEFCON is going to be really interesting this year, for a change.
Why would DEFCON want Aaron Barr on any sort of panel? The guy is at best a hack of a security professional and at worst a complete idiot of a slime ball who doesn't understand the first thing about technology.
Kinda reminds me of this:<p><a href="http://news.infracritical.com/pipermail/scadasec/2011-May/019934.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.infracritical.com/pipermail/scadasec/2011-May/01...</a><p>the more I see in the security world, the more I think full disclosure is the only responsible way to work towards a more secure system.