Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Serial Swatter

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: The Serial Swatter

#61

Post by [deleted] »

Frondo wrote: post #33
bigguy4u wrote: post #27

When you walk into an anonymous message board and the first thing you declare is your gender, you shouldn't be surprised when other people think you are attention whoring. Tits or gtfo is the perfect counter, since you want to a special snowflake, then we will treat you as your polar opposite - a generic bag of skin and meat worth nothing but a masturbation aid. Downvote all you like. The truth hurts doesn't it?

I will reply before your comment disappears into oblivion (which it will and should): No, no, a thousand times no, because there is nothing wrong with being a woman . Everyone's gender, man, woman, or however they see it, is part of what makes them a human being. It makes up a part of your identity whether you're conscious of it or not. Announcing your gender is no more "attention whoring" (itself an awful, loaded ph…

[deleted]

Re: The Serial Swatter

#62

Post by skybrian »

CaptSpify wrote: post #53
skybrian wrote: post #47

I'm wondering if a reliable caller ID that gives a rough geographical source of the call would prevent most swatting. A supposedly local emergency call that actually comes from a different country should be considered suspicious. Seems like there are some loopholes to be closed?

The problem, I think, is that there does need to be a way to "anonymously" report suspicious activity. Imagine a legit call, where the "callee" is known by the "suspicious person". I agree that there's room for improvement/checking, but not sure how to reconcile the two.

Not sure what you mean since the emergency responders can keep the source of the call confidential.

In any case, exact location isn't necessary. It doesn't make sense to treat a local call and a call from somewhere in Canada the same. Most swatting attempts are from far away, so having some indication of location would make it harder to do damage.

Also, most calls to 911 are not anonymous - they automatically get caller id even for blocked numbers. It's just that there are some loopholes.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#63

Post by fencepost »

cstross wrote: post #21
jgrahamc wrote: post #10

Many of the comments here about about the SWAT teams and militarization of the US police force, but the story I read is that this guy (and others) went after women gamers because of their gender. Just the other day a woman programmer told me of some of the threats and abuse she'd suffered essentially because she's a programmer, a woman and has a public profile. I find this so depressing.

I'm kind of startled that this type of crime isn't prosecuted as attempted murder. (If I go out and try to hire a hit-man to kill someone, that's how the prosecuting authorities would deal with me. If I try and trick someone else who is armed into killing someone for me? That's a very short step from paying an assassin -- there's just less money involved. That the armed someone in question is a SWAT team doesn't clea…

Probably not attempted murder, but conspiracy to commit murder, though even that would be a stretch. I'm not sure what charges there might be one step down from that - "conspiracy to engineer a situation where a death is possible?"

Though I still think proven prosecutorial misconduct in capital cases should be charged as conspiracy to commit murder (since I'm pretty sure that all states actually classify executions as homicides for cause of death).

Re: The Serial Swatter

#64

Post by dibujante »

Zigurd wrote: post #51
dibujante wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, flip the response around - respond low and then upgrade. It's possible that this would lead to less death overall. But it would also mean that any situation requiring escalation would probably indicate such through the death of a police officer. Would you want to be the sacrificial officer who knocks on the door to find out if the situation is worth escalating? The overall numbers might work out better in that…

The US has unusually aggressive police, with tactics and doctrine that result in far too much shooting and killing compared to other advanced nations. Yet those other places don't get lots of dead police. Maybe there is a way to do this without "responding high?"

You're missing my point; I'm not arguing in favor of responding high, but instead pointing out that responding high is more psychologically comfortable than its numerical consequences would otherwise indicate.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#65

Post by gherkin0 »

rchaud wrote: post #59
cmdkeen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that would involve the state conceding that SWAT teams don't exercise sufficient restraint in choosing when to utilise deadly force. It very much should be heavily prosecuted but that is why it can't be attempted murder. Much like why the police can't "shoot to disable" it's to do with the legal implications of what you are admitting.

Maybe not a murder charge, but in the US, there are a number of lesser charges that don't imply direct intent, such as negligent homicide, 3 degrees of manslaughter and others. In the case of deliberate targeting of women based on gender, it's possible to attach a hate crime charge as well, which would add significantly to the possible jail time. At the very least, pursuing some of these charges would build leverage,…

I don't think you're going to solve this problem by merely increasing penalties and throwing more years-in-prison at the perpetrators. Most of them seem to be kids who seem think they're invincible anyway.

> At the very least, pursuing some of these charges would build leverage, which may result in the defendant pleading to a lesser charge.

That's a really ugly part of the American justice system (e.g. scare the accused with over-inflated penalties to get them to plead guilty with no trial). That should be abandoned.

The real solution will be 1) removing SWAT teams from communities that have no real need for them and 2) training police to only use SWAT tactics once they've confirmed they're appropriate for the situation.

SWATing pranks are only just one symptom of the overuse of military tactics by police.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#66

Post by masklinn »

fencepost wrote: post #63
cstross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm kind of startled that this type of crime isn't prosecuted as attempted murder. (If I go out and try to hire a hit-man to kill someone, that's how the prosecuting authorities would deal with me. If I try and trick someone else who is armed into killing someone for me? That's a very short step from paying an assassin -- there's just less money involved. That the armed someone in question is a SWAT team doesn't clea…

Probably not attempted murder, but conspiracy to commit murder, though even that would be a stretch. I'm not sure what charges there might be one step down from that - "conspiracy to engineer a situation where a death is possible?" Though I still think proven prosecutorial misconduct in capital cases should be charged as conspiracy to commit murder (since I'm pretty sure that all states actually classify executions a…

What conspiracy? swatters use police response as weapons, it's not a conspiracy it's a person's abuse of the system. If I tie high-voltage to a doorknob to electrocute somebody I'm not conspiring with the utility company I'm abusing what they provide.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#67

Post by btown »

skybrian wrote: post #62
CaptSpify wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, I think, is that there does need to be a way to "anonymously" report suspicious activity. Imagine a legit call, where the "callee" is known by the "suspicious person". I agree that there's room for improvement/checking, but not sure how to reconcile the two.

Not sure what you mean since the emergency responders can keep the source of the call confidential. In any case, exact location isn't necessary. It doesn't make sense to treat a local call and a call from somewhere in Canada the same. Most swatting attempts are from far away, so having some indication of location would make it harder to do damage. Also, most calls to 911 are not anonymous - they automatically get cal…

As other commenters have noted, it is possible to buy local area code numbers for use on Google Voice. Very difficult to distinguish a swatter from a true resident of the area.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#68

Post by hooloovoo_zoo »

CaptSpify wrote: post #53
skybrian wrote: post #47

I'm wondering if a reliable caller ID that gives a rough geographical source of the call would prevent most swatting. A supposedly local emergency call that actually comes from a different country should be considered suspicious. Seems like there are some loopholes to be closed?

The problem, I think, is that there does need to be a way to "anonymously" report suspicious activity. Imagine a legit call, where the "callee" is known by the "suspicious person". I agree that there's room for improvement/checking, but not sure how to reconcile the two.

They just need to treat the call differently. Don't go in guns blazing if your call came from a TOR exit node.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#69

Post by GFischer »

sdoering wrote: post #19

Sorry to say that, but WTF? Having read this account, I can hardly believe such people (creatures? idiots? Lost for words right now.) exist. Even knowing, this is a one in a million/billion case, I really do not understand how someone could do things like this. I totally understand how a system can be exploited. I even can acknowledge on an intellectual level the "hack" of the system. But playing with lives destroyin…

I really wish he'd get some psychological or psychatric treatment, or even psychiatric internment. Much more suitable and helpful than more incarceration.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#70

Post by masklinn »

sdoering wrote: post #19

Sorry to say that, but WTF? Having read this account, I can hardly believe such people (creatures? idiots? Lost for words right now.) exist. Even knowing, this is a one in a million/billion case, I really do not understand how someone could do things like this. I totally understand how a system can be exploited. I even can acknowledge on an intellectual level the "hack" of the system. But playing with lives destroyin…

> Even knowing, this is a one in a million/billion case, I really do not understand how someone could do things like this.

Definitely not billion, there have been tons of cases in the US alone[0]. See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/teen-pleads-guilt... for an other fine case earlier this year.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting#Notable_cases note that the section is called "notable cases" it is not an exhaustive list by any stretch of imagination

Post reply on HN