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

111–120 of 231 posts

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#111

Post by mcantelon »

tptacek wrote: post #107
mcantelon wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're asking what one form of doxing has to do with another? Well... they're both forms of doxing. You seem to arbitrarily consider one form a problem, but not the other.

That is correct. Just because you apply some name with negative message board valence to a set of conduct, that doesn't by itself make it reasonable to condemn every behavior in that set. This seems pretty obvious to me. What am I missing?

I'd say it's pretty reasonable to condemn two ways of exposing people to possible harassment and violence.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#112

Post by jplayer01 »

jonas21 wrote: post #105
wongarsu wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Germany you can anonymously call the police (using a pay phone or whatever), but it's not an issue because the police use the door bell and politely take a look instead of busting the door open and storming the place with drawn guns. I understand police in the US has to adapt to the assumption that everyone has a gun, but even when you suspect a hostage situation what's the problem with politely knocking and…

Because stuff like this happens (warning: graphic content): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SThUJTApA5I In this case, they smelled smoke coming from the unit, which is why the fire department broke down the door, and the officers didn't go in expecting to get shot at. It's easy to fault the police when they respond with guns drawn, but at the same time it's often impossible for them to know what they're about to walk…

Police are supposed to serve the public, not kill them indiscriminately without cause and without repercussions. If you can't handle getting shot at or any other risks involved, maybe you shouldn't be a cop with a loaded gun and power over others.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#113

Post by tptacek »

mcantelon wrote: post #111
tptacek wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is correct. Just because you apply some name with negative message board valence to a set of conduct, that doesn't by itself make it reasonable to condemn every behavior in that set. This seems pretty obvious to me. What am I missing?

I'd say it's pretty reasonable to condemn two ways of exposing people to possible harassment and violence.

That's a way of saying journalists can't report on anyone. After all, it's easy to offend someone, somewhere. And they might harass as a result!

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#114

Post by dragonwriter »

stcredzero wrote: post #47
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 cyc…

> The US has a developing extremist problem, period. Having two sides with radicals willing to continuously ramp up the levels of violence,

We don't; domestic extremist violence for many years in the US has consistently been very one-sided, with the Right being the absolutely dominant source, especially for deadly violence against persons.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#115

Post by stcredzero »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #110
stcredzero wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cyc…

There is no equivalent on the left that inflamed the left like Trump does to the right. Period. You don’t see antifa hooligans wearing Clinton garb. You did see MAGA hats at Charlottesville. This isn’t a both sides issue.

You don’t see antifa hooligans wearing Clinton garb.

To them, Clinton is a dirty centrist.

This isn’t a both sides issue.

It's not even a both fringes issue, as there are multiple fringes that don't even like each other. It is a fringes issue, however.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#116

Post by mirimir »

tptacek wrote: post #108
mirimir wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Krebs does indeed habitually doxx alleged criminals. There's a perfect example just a ways down from TFA: "Meet the World’s Biggest ‘Bulletproof’ Hoster".[0] And he doesn't just rely on public sources: > KrebsOnSecurity uncovered strong evidence to support a similar conclusion. In 2010, this author received a massive data dump from a source that had hacked into or otherwise absconded with more than four years of emai…

Where by "habitually doxx", you mean "reports", which is what reporters do. When it's Fortune 500 executives or politicians, we seem to have no problem with this behavior; in fact, we get mad when it doesn't happen. But when it's someone in our "tribe" getting reported on, there's this whole new set of rules that supposedly applies. It seems like special pleading to me.

Sure, that's what some journalists do. But Krebs' thing is being a grey-hat vigilante. He does social engineering on forums. He trades data with other vigilantes.

> ... you mean "reports", which is what reporters do ...

So this doxx site just reports on people, no?

The distinction between him and the doxx site he writes about is subtle.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#117

Post by tastroder »

rhcom2 wrote: post #99
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

250 incidents in 17 years seems to hardly be an explanation to rule out de-escalation by default when interacting with the general population. Even in these cases, it's not like SWATting is a new phenomenon. As an alternative: Maybe invest in proper training for LEOs instead of military grade equipment, that would at least decrease the frequency of stuff like [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#118

Post by tptacek »

mirimir wrote: post #116
tptacek wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where by "habitually doxx", you mean "reports", which is what reporters do. When it's Fortune 500 executives or politicians, we seem to have no problem with this behavior; in fact, we get mad when it doesn't happen. But when it's someone in our "tribe" getting reported on, there's this whole new set of rules that supposedly applies. It seems like special pleading to me.

Sure, that's what some journalists do. But Krebs' thing is being a grey-hat vigilante. He does social engineering on forums. He trades data with other vigilantes. > ... you mean "reports", which is what reporters do ... So this doxx site just reports on people, no? The distinction between him and the doxx site he writes about is subtle.

Mainstream reporters semi-routinely break actual laws to break stories, and are received as heroes for it.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#119

Post by mcantelon »

tptacek wrote: post #113
mcantelon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's pretty reasonable to condemn two ways of exposing people to possible harassment and violence.

That's a way of saying journalists can't report on anyone. After all, it's easy to offend someone , somewhere . And they might harass as a result!

They can report on people using pseudonyms by referring to the pseudonym. This is done all the time when referring to tweets, etc. And, yes, people certainly exist who get offended and decide to harass/threaten others as a result. There's no real downside to making it harder for people to do so.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#120

Post by traderjane »

rhcom2 wrote: post #99
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> I think it makes sense from a law enforcement point of view to take every threat as credible until proven otherwise.

Doesn't that strike you as something people might say but never do? Kind of like innocence until proven guilty? I mean of course the state and its employees don't think like that.

Post reply on HN