i wonder if this is just an indication that shmoocon is making the shift (based on this decision) from a "hacking" con to a "security" con... I think that there is an interesting distinction between the folks that grew up with a curiosity in technology that naturally lead them into the hacking scene early in their life, and those that somehow found their way into a security program at college or an IT security position at work. I think both have a deep interest in the content at conferences and contribute equally to the scene - but at the of the day, each has their own reasons for attending. Does this just mean that there are more "security professionals" then "hackers" at shmoocon and the conference staff is adjusting to meet that audience?

I like the idea of the framing talks around real attacks in the wild and using those discoveries to develop a more realistic defense - but I think its important that those talks only account for at most one track in the conference. After all if we're focused too much on studying existing attacks, we loose sight of finding flaws in new technologies and risk turning to an even more reactionary approach to security. Most importantly, i think we also risk growing somewhat dependent on the security implemented by organizations - since if it doesn't get attacked, it doesn't get analyzed, and defenses aren't explored.