SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists • Hacker News Board

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#41

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

rndgermandude wrote: post #30

tptacek wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the definition of "dox" you're using, that doesn't appear to be what Krebs did. He posted names, and a public LinkedIn profile.

No, that's my response to your question about how you could dox a journalist. Now, Krebs doxed people in the past who didn't want their true identities revealed. Often because those people were up to no good, but sometimes Krebs went a bit overboard in my opinion. More in general, and I am not saying Krebs ever did this, there are valid reasons why people might not want their true identities widely revealed. Think wh…

I'm sorry, but you're confusing two different concepts. In one instance, Brian Krebs uses public, open sources to discover the true names behind pseudonymous Twitter users; in another, people post home addresses and phone numbers.

I'm not asking why it would violate a norm to post home addresses or phone numbers; it's clear to me why that's problematic.

I'm asking what obligation Krebs has to pretend he doesn't know who a Twitter user is, when that information is available to anyone who knows how to consult public sources to find it. Why is Krebs obligated to help someone remain pseudonymous? It seems clear to me that he is not.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#42

Post by the8472 » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

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…

It is ultimately still the cops' judgement to kick down doors and shoot at anything that moves. The swatter just provides low-credibility information that sets them into motion.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#43

Post by penagwin » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

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.

To play devils advocate a little - If I'm a 911 operator and the person calling says "They have gun next door - there's shouting, I'm really scared WHAT DO I DO?!" What do we do? Turn them down? Ask for proof? From the police perspective - they're entering a potentially dangerous environment, which means gun drawn until the environment is cleared.

To your point though - the fact that the swatting has resulted in innocent deaths is evidence that law enforcement is too aggressive.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#44

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #34

grandmczeb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not by Twitter's definition.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#45

Post by mcantelon » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #16

rndgermandude wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You post their home address. Their private phone number. And the same of their spouses. And their parents. And the address of the school their children visit. And the route they usually take to work. etc. Then the bad person hacks their icloud and dropbox and releases their private pictures and videos, the naughtier the better. And yes, all of that happened recently in Germany mostly to some prominent politicians, wh…

If that's the definition of "dox" you're using, that doesn't appear to be what Krebs did. He posted names, and a public LinkedIn profile.

Exposing the real names of anonymous/pseudoanonymous people, regardless of whether it's hard to find out (given that many people suck at opsec), is probably the most common scenario people refer to when using the word "doxing".

"researching and broadcasting private or identifying information (especially personally identifying information) about an individual or organization"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#46

Post by penagwin » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

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.

You can still buy a 10$ sim card and use a burner phone. Potentially a free VOIP app would work too.

It's not super scalable (that's why numbers are spoofed instead) but for a couple calls it'd be no problem.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#47

Post by stcredzero » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

tomlock wrote: post #23

[flagged]

The US has a developing extremist problem, period. Having two sides with radicals willing to continuously ramp up the levels of violence, outrage, and intimidation is a recipe for bad things to happen. Another example, more recent than the period between world wars:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)

In The Power of Nightmares, Adam Curtis talks about how opposing sides exploit the mutual vicious cycle of outrage. The common interest between extreme groups who otherwise demonize and hate each other, is that they both benefit from the cycle of outrage and the breakdown of society. Both fringes want to let things break down and roll the dice, for the chance they might come out on top.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#48

Post by the8472 » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

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.

Anonymous phone calls have positive uses too, it would be nice to not install more surveillance infrastructure and have less trigger-happy police instead. In other countries cops ring the door and ask if everything is ok after they have received a call.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#49

Post by donatj » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

penagwin wrote: post #43

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.

To play devils advocate a little - If I'm a 911 operator and the person calling says "They have gun next door - there's shouting, I'm really scared WHAT DO I DO?!" What do we do? Turn them down? Ask for proof? From the police perspective - they're entering a potentially dangerous environment, which means gun drawn until the environment is cleared. To your point though - the fact that the swatting has resulted in inno…

Drive by, see if there's any other evidence of any of this, leave if there isn't - because an unverified phone call alone really shouldn't count as probable cause?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#50

Post by dmix » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #35

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…

There was absolutely no need for that cop to shoot that person who got SWAT'd either. The guy was completely surrounded by police with rifles, at a far distance, and he was obviously confused at being told multiple different commands. They are way, way too quick to pull the trigger.

All 911 calls are and should be taken seriously though. Even when you misdial 911 they will sometimes even send a car out to make sure, unless you explain yourself well over the phone.

So these scammer guys will always be able to get a police response, especially as long as phone calls can be spoofed to look like it's coming from "inside" the house. The only variable is how the police handle it and, of course, how many sociopaths there are who can pull it off properly without getting caught.