By Catalin Cimpanu for Zero Day | July 4, 2020MORE COMMENTS: https://www.zdnet.com/article/infosec-community-disagrees-with-changing-black-hat-term-due-to-racial-stereotyping/
The information security (infosec) community has angrily reacted today to calls to abandon the use of the 'black hat' and 'white hat' terms, citing that the two, and especially 'black hat,' have nothing to do with racial stereotyping.
Discussions about the topic started late last night after David Kleidermacher, VP of Engineering at Google, and in charge of Android Security and the Google Play Store, withdrew from a scheduled talk he was set to give in August at the Black Hat USA 2020 security conference.
In his withdrawal announcement, Kleidermacher asked the infosec industry to consider replacing terms like black hat, white hat, and man-in-the-middle with neutral alternatives.
These changes remove harmful associations, promote inclusion, and help us break down walls of unconscious bias. Not everyone agrees which terms to change, but I feel strongly our language needs to (this one in particular).
— David Kleidermacher (@DaveKSecure) July 3, 2020
While Kleidermacher only asked the industry to consider changing these terms, several members mistook his statement as a direct request to the Black Hat conference to change its name.
With Black Hat being the biggest event in cyber-security, online discussions on the topic quickly became widespread among cyber-security experts, dominating the July 4th weekend.
While a part of the infosec community agreed with Kledermacher, the vast majority did not, and called it virtue signaling taken to the extreme.
Most security researchers pointed to the fact that the terms had nothing to do with racism or skin color, and had their origins in classic western movies, where the villain usually wore a black hat, while the good guy wore a white hat.
Others pointed to the dualism between black and white as representing evil and good, concepts that have been around since the dawn of civilizations, long before racial divides even existed between humans.
Right now, the infosec community doesn't seem to be willing to abandon the two terms, which they don't see as a problem when used in infosec-related writings.
Am nächsten Montag feiern die britischen Waidmänner und -frauen den Glorious Twelfth: Ab dem 12. August wird in Schottland und Nordengland das Moorhuhn geschossen. Die Hatz auf den rotbraunen Vogel inspirierte auch ein legendäres deutsches Computerspiel. Die erste Moorhuhnjagd erschien im Herbst 1998. Vor zwanzig Jahren verbreitete sich das Programm dann immer schneller im Netz.Hachja, ich kann mich auch noch daran erinnern, es als Kind gezockt zu haben. Quasi der erste Shooter.
Today’s cars are equipped with telematics, in the form of an always-on wireless transmitter that constantly sends vehicle performance and maintenance data to the manufacturer. Modern cars collect as much as 25 gigabytes of data per hour, the consulting firm McKinsey estimates, and it’s about much more than performance and maintenance.
Cars not only know how much we weigh but also track how much weight we gain. They know how fast we drive, where we live, how many children we have — even financial information. Connect a phone to a car, and it knows who we call and who we text.
But who owns and, ultimately, controls that data? And what are carmakers doing with it?
Carmakers use data to alert us when something needs repair or when our cars need to be taken in for service. What they don’t tell us is that by controlling our data, they can limit where we get that repair or service done. For almost a century, car and truck owners have been able to take their vehicles to whichever shop they choose and trust for maintenance and repair. That may be changing.