> On 21.3.2012 15:26, Dave Aitel wrote: >> Why is it that every conference has gone the full hog and decided >> that you must sell keynotes?
As odious as paid keynotes might be, I wonder if this is just a more direct representation of how all conferences work. Running a security conference comes with a certain amount of power; even if they're not paid, the ability to choose which submitted talks will be given allows the organizers to define the narrative for what people think is happening and what's important. Paid keynotes exemplify an obvious microcosm of how this can play out. Even when there are no paid keynotes, however, most security conferences today are put together by organizations or individuals who have a business stake in the security industry. So while Immunity might not accept paid keynotes, it should be no surprise that the types of talks at Infiltrate are what they are. That is to say, Infiltrate doesn't need to accept paid keynotes, because the unpaid talks are already selected to contribute to Immunity's business. I fully believe that, within the context that Immunity has identified as contributing to its success, they will select talks based on technical content, speaking ability, and prevalence of buffy quotes. But while BHEU had a 30 minute commercial for Fortigate, let's not forget that Infiltrate is in some sense one really big commercial for Immunity. This isn't to say that I dislike watching the Immunity commercial, or that I don't appreciate its subtlety, but I think we should be wary of suggesting that these things are somehow "vendor neutral" or devoid of vendor influence when the organizers themselves are very often vendors and yield considerably more influence that a single paid talk ever could. - moxie -- http://www.thoughtcrime.org _______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list [email protected] http://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
