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

SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 231 posts

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#31

Post by jonny_eh »

donatj wrote: post #24

The heart of the problem is that SWAT-ing is possible. You shouldn't be able to make an anonymous phone call and have the police bust down someone else's door guns drawn. An unverified phone call alone should not amount to probable cause. That's not civilization.

Then what do you propose, people give their names? But then they'll give fake names. So ask for proof of identity? Is that even possible, let alone expedient in an emergency?

The solution is to take these reports seriously, but with a grain of salt. i.e. don't just shoot a guy that walks out of his house while confused.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#32

Post by tptacek »

grandmczeb wrote: post #17
tptacek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what obligation does Brian Krebs have to maintain the anonymity of random people on the Internet?

It’s against Twitter’s TOS for one. “Sharing someone’s private information online without their permission, sometimes called doxxing, is a breach of their privacy and of the Twitter Rules. Sharing private information can pose serious safety and security risks for those affected and can lead to physical, emotional, and financial hardship.”

No, it's not: Twitter is explicit about the types of information that cannot be shared, and Krebs didn't share those things. Twitter also explicitly exempts information available from public sources. A public LinkedIn profile certainly fits that exemption.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#34

Post by oh_sigh »

grandmczeb wrote: post #17
tptacek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what obligation does Brian Krebs have to maintain the anonymity of random people on the Internet?

It’s against Twitter’s TOS for one. “Sharing someone’s private information online without their permission, sometimes called doxxing, is a breach of their privacy and of the Twitter Rules. Sharing private information can pose serious safety and security risks for those affected and can lead to physical, emotional, and financial hardship.”

Is saying 'Anonymous account X is operated by non-anonymous account Y' doxxing?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#35

Post by jMyles »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #25

This could have just been an unfortunate escalation of the political tension which seems to be omnipresent, but once you drag the police into the game it becomes deadly. I suspect the idea of "counter-doxing" made sense at one time, when CNN was threatening to dox people over memes, or when someone is doxed, fired, and humiliated, because a twitter-ista thinks you've manspread too far (/s?), but none of that even rem…

I think I prefer to live in a society in which these sorts of fake calls are intentionally and randomly made - without notice or authorization of any sort - in order to continually test and verify that emergency services are functioning properly (in this case, not killing anyone based on an anonymous tip).

Making a 911 call is an anonymous venture; there's no deposition or oath or penalty of perjury here. A civilized society is one in which calls made to such an endpoint (whether by a human or bot or whomever) are treated accordingly.

Police need to stop killing people. Stop violating people's rights. SWAT teams have not made society better and are easily deprecated. That's the real message here.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#36

Post by MisterTea »

jonny_eh wrote: post #31
donatj wrote: post #24

The heart of the problem is that SWAT-ing is possible. You shouldn't be able to make an anonymous phone call and have the police bust down someone else's door guns drawn. An unverified phone call alone should not amount to probable cause. That's not civilization.

Then what do you propose, people give their names? But then they'll give fake names. So ask for proof of identity? Is that even possible, let alone expedient in an emergency? The solution is to take these reports seriously, but with a grain of salt. i.e. don't just shoot a guy that walks out of his house while confused.

How about a phone system that does not allow random people to spoof numbers with little to no effort. That would be a nice start. Would also curb all those friggin spam calls I get from random numbers.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#37

Post by debt »

donatj wrote: post #24

The heart of the problem is that SWAT-ing is possible. You shouldn't be able to make an anonymous phone call and have the police bust down someone else's door guns drawn. An unverified phone call alone should not amount to probable cause. That's not civilization.

The heart of the problem is that neo-nazi's are secretly compiling lists of opponents they wish to harm.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#38

Post by dmix »

walshemj wrote: post #26
monksy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, a list in the US created to target the right/extremists: https://www.elon.edu/E-Net/Article/166381

Interesting that I got down voted for saying that I know people on a list like that in the UK.

I believe you were downvoted because your comment was both grammatically incorrect ("I know some people who are a similar list") and didn't provide any source/substance. Additionally, talking about downvoting is a quick way to get downvoted.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#39

Post by tomlock »

mcantelon wrote: post #33
tomlock wrote: post #23

[flagged]

And a left wing extremist problem, given the recent Antifa beating of journalist Andy Ngo and, fortunately unsuccessful, attempt by Antifa to ignite a large propane tank next to a migrant center.

Right wing extremists have killed more people in the last ten years than any other political group.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#40

Post by jonny_eh »

MisterTea wrote: post #36
jonny_eh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what do you propose, people give their names? But then they'll give fake names. So ask for proof of identity? Is that even possible, let alone expedient in an emergency? The solution is to take these reports seriously, but with a grain of salt. i.e. don't just shoot a guy that walks out of his house while confused.

How about a phone system that does not allow random people to spoof numbers with little to no effort. That would be a nice start. Would also curb all those friggin spam calls I get from random numbers.

People are working on a solution, but unfortunately it's a tough challenge due to bad choices made decades ago.
Post reply on HN