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

71–80 of 231 posts

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#71

Post by tomlock »

stcredzero wrote: post #55
tomlock wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is true, though for awhile in the past few years, the Far Left was catching up, though the Far Right surged ahead in this year. However, in terms of numbers of events of violence, intimidation, and minor assault, the Far Left has been quite busy. The left leaning media just shows an extreme bias in discussing these events. All of that stuff is bad, and bad for us.

The amount of hate crimes, and remember, the fbi has said white supremacy is now the majority of terrorism arrests it does, have also surged, so it's more a case of the issue on the right being greater in magnitude than there being a left wing bias.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#72

Post by tptacek »

rndgermandude wrote: post #66
tptacek wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Most doxers use public, open sources to discover the true names behind pseudonymous users. And their addresses. People make mistakes, sometimes even about other people's data. Sometimes people have no choice because a lot of the information is public record. That isn't an excuse for compiling this information and publishing it as wide a possible. You still have to consider the implications if you want to act morally…

I'm still lost. What obligation does Brian Krebs have to pretend that the real identity of a pseudonymous Twitter user isn't discoverable from open sources, or to help conceal that identity? I submit that he has no such obligation, but that message board people like to pretend that he does, and that contravening that norm constitutes the real-world offense of "doxxing". Baloney, I say. Am I wrong? Educate me.

If he's posting home phone numbers or addresses, I'm clear on what the problem is. But if you have a public LinkedIn profile and don't have the OPSEC to keep public sources from linking your secret Twitter handle to that profile, I don't see any problem at all.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#73

Post by davidw »

Mirioron wrote: post #61
davidw wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand police in the US has to adapt to the assumption that everyone has a gun That might be a big part of the 'root cause' of this issue.

But many other countries have guns too, eg Switzerland. They don't seem to suffer from the same issue though.

Switzerland's regulations are far, far stricter than those in the US.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#74

Post by seandougall »

debt wrote: post #37
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.

They certainly are, but I don't believe there's anything novel about that.

What's (relatively) new is that they've discovered they can summon their own personal army in the form of an increasingly militarized police force.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#75

Post by mcantelon »

tptacek wrote: post #53
mcantelon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't care what you call it. If that's what "doxing" means, then I don't know why Krebs would ever be obligated not to "dox". What I see here is a motte and bailey argument where the argument people seem to want to make is that everyone in the world is obliged to honor message board norms that say the real identities of pseudonymous people can't ever be revealed, but when that's challenged, they retreat to the bana…

So you think it's okay to connect a pseudonym to a real identity, but not a real identity to a physical address?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#76

Post by rndgermandude »

tptacek wrote: post #72
rndgermandude wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most doxers use public, open sources to discover the true names behind pseudonymous users. And their addresses. People make mistakes, sometimes even about other people's data. Sometimes people have no choice because a lot of the information is public record. That isn't an excuse for compiling this information and publishing it as wide a possible. You still have to consider the implications if you want to act morally…

I'm still lost. What obligation does Brian Krebs have to pretend that the real identity of a pseudonymous Twitter user isn't discoverable from open sources, or to help conceal that identity? I submit that he has no such obligation, but that message board people like to pretend that he does, and that contravening that norm constitutes the real-world offense of "doxxing". Baloney, I say. Am I wrong? Educate me. If he's…

What obligation? A moral one. Do no harm.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#77

Post by TeMPOraL »

Mirioron wrote: post #61
davidw wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand police in the US has to adapt to the assumption that everyone has a gun That might be a big part of the 'root cause' of this issue.

But many other countries have guns too, eg Switzerland. They don't seem to suffer from the same issue though.

Maybe they don't have enough criminals discharging those guns?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#78

Post by AcerbicZero »

the8472 wrote: post #42
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.

I agree, and have added an edit to reiterate that.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#79

Post by tptacek »

rndgermandude wrote: post #76
tptacek wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still lost. What obligation does Brian Krebs have to pretend that the real identity of a pseudonymous Twitter user isn't discoverable from open sources, or to help conceal that identity? I submit that he has no such obligation, but that message board people like to pretend that he does, and that contravening that norm constitutes the real-world offense of "doxxing". Baloney, I say. Am I wrong? Educate me. If he's…

What obligation? A moral one. Do no harm.

I do not have a general moral obligation to actively help shield you from the consequences of your own speech, however harmful they might be.
Post reply on HN