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

91–100 of 231 posts

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#91

Post by AmericanChopper »

Mirioron wrote: post #67
AmericanChopper wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caller: “hi 911, I’m being held hostage by an armed and violent individual at this address, this is the only opportunity I’ve had to use a phone” 911 call taker: “Thanks for your report. We’ll work on verifying this and might be able to get out there in 2-3 weeks.”

Or maybe the police can still go check, but just not do it guns blazing? They can ring the door bell and ask to check around. If they're afraid of being fired upon they could even use a police robot or something.

Hostage taker: “Nope, there’s no hostages here, and no you can’t come in”

Police: “Well, thanks for that. Have a nice day”...

Police don’t bust in and start opening fire, so your description of how this works is simply false, and removing their ability to respond to emergencies is absurd.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#92

Post by techsupporter »

jancsika wrote: post #82
penagwin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your last sentence doesn't follow. For the moment, replace "swatting" with bona fide criminals behind the door. If the swat teams ended up killing some of those criminals that wouldn't be evidence of over-aggression on the part of law enforcement. Since you posit that "gun drawn" is the reasonable response to swatting, then the same logic applies. You're obligated to continue wearing your devil mask for that sentence…

> For the moment, replace "swatting" with bona fide criminals behind the door. If the swat teams ended up killing some of those criminals that wouldn't be evidence of over-aggression on the part of law enforcement.

Yes, it would. Our police are not, as the saying goes, "judge, jury, and executioner." Those "bona fide criminals behind the door" are only accused of a crime and are entitled to a vigorous defense and day in court. They are definitely not to simply be gunned down in response to the arrival of the police.

Yes, if those people happen to do something threatening that requires lethal response--like shooting at the responding officers--then the officers are entitled to defend themselves. But police officers simply happening to show up where criminal activity is occurring does not give those officers license to "kill some of those criminals." That is over-aggression on the part of law enforcement and, sadly enough, is one of the major problems we're dealing with in Seattle in relation to our police, petty crime, the ways our police force have reacted in the past, and how to balance the competing needs.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#93

Post by vageli »

itsgrimetime wrote: post #12
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?

I'm going to interpret this as charitably as possible: Are you attempting to bring attention to the fact that doxxing is rarely prosecuted, even though it's illegal and there's boatloads of evidence that it is in fact a form of violence? This is the only way I can imagine this question being raised that doesn't assume you're trolling.

> I'm going to interpret this as charitably as possible: Are you attempting to bring attention to the fact that doxxing is rarely prosecuted, even though it's illegal and there's boatloads of evidence that it is in fact a form of violence? This is the only way I can imagine this question being raised that doesn't assume you're trolling.

This is a genuine question, but is doxxing really illegal? I recently read that posting someone's social security number is not illegal, so I'm finding it hard to reconcile the two notions.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#94

Post by nothis »

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…

I know in my country, the police would probably knock on the door and verify that something's wrong, especially if the caller can't spin a convincing scenario that fits the location. Maybe pistols drawn, but pointed down. If someone answers and says "huh? I didn't call anyone? what's going on?" in a somewhat convincing way, ask them to step outside, hands up, and if he complies the situation is probably solved, right there. You can still have a look inside, confirm.

There's like so many steps along the way where you can make an assessment of the situation before going FULL SWAT-raid. Mother in a night gown opening the door, yawning? Probably not a threat.

I'm not saying I want the job handling these situations or that it's easy, but "well, someone called, let's send in the Wet Ops team!" can't be the only answer, either! There's even videos of cops handling this super calm and professionally, basically how I described it above. So it's not impossible.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#95

Post by rndgermandude »

tptacek wrote: post #79
rndgermandude wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am rather speechless... This is just... wow.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#96

Post by dredmorbius »

the8472 wrote: post #48
MisterTea wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Legibility need not be global legibility.

In a pre-adtech surveillance capitalism world, it was possible to physically enter a location and be known to some but not all.

An IFF system that's readable only to friends addresses much this need.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#97

Post by [deleted] »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #58
mcantelon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might take a lot of lawsuits to get them to verify info before acting on it.

Caller: “hi 911, I’m being held hostage by an armed and violent individual at this address, this is the only opportunity I’ve had to use a phone” 911 call taker: “Thanks for your report. We’ll work on verifying this and might be able to get out there in 2-3 weeks.”

[deleted]

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#98

Post by grandmczeb »

tptacek wrote: post #32
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.”

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.

“How’s the weather in ?” is not sharing a name and is most certainly covered (“we consider information like physical location to be a higher risk than other types of information.”) Even if the information is public, the policy also calls out intent as a factor and he was obviously sharing it in an attempt to intimidate them. Not to mention, according to his tweet it took him 6 hours to uncover; I think it’s debatable how “public” that makes it.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#99

Post by rhcom2 »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #90
rhcom2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately in our world of active shooters the thinking is now that the police should enter the situation to try to engage the shooter as fast as possible as research shows this is what saves the most lives.

What world is that? I don’t believe that happens often enough in my world for police to come in guns blazing.

I'm trying to explain why de-escalation is not the preferred tactical response from the police when it comes to active shooter scenarios. I think it makes sense from a law enforcement point of view to take every threat as credible until proven otherwise.

According the FBI there's been 250 between 2000-2017. https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-eng...

I also think it's important to understand why the police respond like they do. It isn't arbitrary, it's statistically suppose to save lives, but SWATing is intentionally abusing that response.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#100

Post by tptacek »

mcantelon wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't know how I feel about the latter case but can stipulate that it's problematic. What does that have to do with the former case?
Post reply on HN