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

Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 112 posts

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#11

Post by ClassyJacket »

oh_sigh wrote: post #9
fenomas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the robust solution is for police/swat teams to treat unverified threats differently? Any real world system needs to be able to handle faulty inputs. If this particular system wasn't so terrible at that, bad actors would have no reason to make the false reports in the first place.

What happens when an unverified threat isn't considered quick enough, and the hostages are killed while the police are standing around outside taking a wait and see approach?

The fact that this only happens in America indicates that their approach is the wrong one. They could ask any other developed nation for advice.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#12

Post by specialp »

The main perpetrator whom gave up his friends Tyler Rai Barriss actually did cause the death of someone in Kansas by "Swatting" them. He then was completely unapologetic. These new indictments are after he accepted a plea deal for 20-25 years in federal prison.

Here is his twitter: https://twitter.com/goredtutor36?lang=en. He boasted about swatting people and somehow got internet access in prison and posted his latest post.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-tyler-barriss-swat...

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#13

Post by chipperyman573 »

aharrison wrote: post #5
hermitdev wrote: post #2

Several things need to be done. These idiots should be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder. The phone system needs to be updated to prevent apoofing of numbers. I know it jas its reasons for corporate exchanges and whatnot, but safety outweighs that. A Telco should be able to uniquely identify precisely who made a call. Along the way: no blocked numbers on caller ID. I dont answer a…

I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips. If we are going to start talking about fixing this issue, I'm not sure getting rid of blocked numbers is going to materially impact these outcomes. Likewise, what is your recommendation on eliminating the threat of burner phones?

>I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips

I think the logic behind this is that if the tip was correct then trying to talk it out/etc could end much worse for everyone involved. You have to remember that, to the best of the officer's knowledge, there is a live hostage in a building somewhere that needs to be saved by them

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#14

Post by jrochkind1 »

fenomas wrote: post #6
hermitdev wrote: post #2

Several things need to be done. These idiots should be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder. The phone system needs to be updated to prevent apoofing of numbers. I know it jas its reasons for corporate exchanges and whatnot, but safety outweighs that. A Telco should be able to uniquely identify precisely who made a call. Along the way: no blocked numbers on caller ID. I dont answer a…

Surely the robust solution is for police/swat teams to treat unverified threats differently? Any real world system needs to be able to handle faulty inputs. If this particular system wasn't so terrible at that, bad actors would have no reason to make the false reports in the first place.

How do you think they are going to verify a threat?

By showing up, right?

I'm not sure "verified" vs "unverified" is the important thing.

I do think U.S. police's approach in general is far too violent and it makes these things more dangerous.

That also means that anyone 'swatting' ought to know they are doing something dangerous and with high potential for violence, far from just a joke, it's an extremely immoral act.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#15

Post by scythe »

ClassyJacket wrote: post #11
oh_sigh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when an unverified threat isn't considered quick enough, and the hostages are killed while the police are standing around outside taking a wait and see approach?

The fact that this only happens in America indicates that their approach is the wrong one. They could ask any other developed nation for advice.

Kirtaner, the owner of 420chan, was infamously swatted by g0shawk some years ago. He lives in Canada (and g0shawk is in Australia).

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#16

Post by [deleted] »

hurray_brt wrote: post #8
chrisseaton wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder How do you prove the intent was to murder rather than to harass? You think you’re being clever by charging with something more serious, then the charge fails because really you just wanted what they really did to have a steeper punishment. > I dont answer a blocked number, anyway They don’t call you - it doesn’t matter what you’d do - t…

> How do you the intent was to murder rather than to harass? Are you serious? If I want to harass someone I'll ring the doorbell and run, order 40 pizzas, throw toilet paper all over their house, etc. Police armed to the teeth is pretty obvious this isn't about harassment. If it is, you need help. https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/29/16830626/call-of-duty-sw...

[deleted]

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#17

Post by hermitdev »

aharrison wrote: post #5
hermitdev wrote: post #2

Several things need to be done. These idiots should be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder. The phone system needs to be updated to prevent apoofing of numbers. I know it jas its reasons for corporate exchanges and whatnot, but safety outweighs that. A Telco should be able to uniquely identify precisely who made a call. Along the way: no blocked numbers on caller ID. I dont answer a…

I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips. If we are going to start talking about fixing this issue, I'm not sure getting rid of blocked numbers is going to materially impact these outcomes. Likewise, what is your recommendation on eliminating the threat of burner phones?

Most police calls that are not from a victim amount to an anonymous call. They cannot be ignored.

I hate to say, but it's a slippery slope. Right now, you can't distinguish between a legit line and a spoof, or a burner.

But a burner still has a traceable number. Perhaps burners could be placed in a "low trust" zone when dialling emergency services. Such a classification could give 1st responders the caution they need.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#18

Post by kinleyd »

aharrison wrote: post #10
oh_sigh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternate side of officers using unreasonable force from a scam anonymous call is getting officers or members of the public killed from a real anonymous call. Police are going to be on high alert regardless, even if they think the call was a hoax

You will note that I did not say "scam" anonymous call. I said "anonymous call" which includes both real and anonymous calls. Police officers should respond with force dictated by the circumstances of their situation, trained in such analysis, and held accountable to their decisions - both as individual officers and as departments. The source of the initial investigation should have little if any impact on the level…

Spot on. I believe the crux of the issue lies in the present bias toward officer safety, leading to an almost anything goes situation if the officer claims to have felt endangered. Which is quite ridiculous because the danger is always there. It's just not an acceptable reason to blast away.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#19

Post by ksdale »

oh_sigh wrote: post #9
fenomas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the robust solution is for police/swat teams to treat unverified threats differently? Any real world system needs to be able to handle faulty inputs. If this particular system wasn't so terrible at that, bad actors would have no reason to make the false reports in the first place.

What happens when an unverified threat isn't considered quick enough, and the hostages are killed while the police are standing around outside taking a wait and see approach?

I feel like occasions where the police react too slowly and hostages get killed would make it into the news.

Instead we have stories about swatting.

Any policy needs to weigh the harm to actual hostages against the harm to victims of swatting and right now it seems like swatting victims are bearing the brunt of police action.

It is just my hunch that Hollywood has made us believe that crazy dangerous hostage situations happen far more often than they actually do and in reality, pranks are much more common.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#20

Post by onetimemanytime »

aharrison wrote: post #5
hermitdev wrote: post #2

Several things need to be done. These idiots should be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder. The phone system needs to be updated to prevent apoofing of numbers. I know it jas its reasons for corporate exchanges and whatnot, but safety outweighs that. A Telco should be able to uniquely identify precisely who made a call. Along the way: no blocked numbers on caller ID. I dont answer a…

I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips. If we are going to start talking about fixing this issue, I'm not sure getting rid of blocked numbers is going to materially impact these outcomes. Likewise, what is your recommendation on eliminating the threat of burner phones?

>>I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips.

Who says they aren't? They have rules, procedures etc., but when you tell police that x person killed his wife and is about to kill his two little children bad things are likely to happen.

Plus, both sides can be held accountable at the same time. The person that made the call can be responsible for everything that happens, even for the car accident cops get into while going there. More or less like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

Post reply on HN