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

131–140 of 231 posts

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#131

Post by mirimir »

tptacek wrote: post #118
mirimir wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sure that the doxx site in TFA is "received as heroes" by some. As with many things, much depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Also, "semi-routinely break actual laws" is a huge bin. Reporters also get sued for libel. And sometimes lose.

Edit: And hey, once you're "break[ing] actual laws", you're a criminal. And by Krebs' standard, you're fair game.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#132

Post by grandmczeb »

tptacek wrote: post #127
grandmczeb wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are regularly banned for posting journalists’ home addresses under the doxxing policy even if it’s available other places online (for good reason.) Again, even if it’s public information the intent also matters.

Brian Krebs does not appear to have posted Vincent Canfield and Jake Williams home addresses.

But he does appear to have posted personal information in an attempt to intimidate them. Even if you don’t want to call that doxxing, can we at least agree that’s not a very nice thing to do?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#133

Post by mikeash »

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.

I propose that police must always respond to an emergency call in a way that will not result in tragedy if it’s fake. Innocent until proven guilty, you know?

The problem isn’t that the police respond to a false alarm. The problem is that they sometimes shoot people when they do.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#134

Post by kyleblarson »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #63

I might be wrong, but a whole bunch of heavily armed guys busting down doors in response to an anonymous phone call is not in the spirit of prioritizing de-escalation over violent resolutions. I want cops de-escalating situations, not shooting up the neighborhood, or going on high-speed chases on neighborhood streets. Now, I imagine swat teams don't like doxxing either. Sounds like a business opportunity.

Why would the police want to de-escalate when they can put on their battle jammies and act like they are in Fallujah while knowing full well there will be zero repercussions for their actions?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#135

Post by zapita »

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…

There are two major terrorist threats in the US at the moment: one is far-right white supremacists; the other is radical islamists. Another comment linked to this GAO report with more data: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf

Are those the two "sides" you are referring to? If so, I fail to see how they are engaging in a "mutual vicious cycle of outrage".

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#136

Post by jonnycomputer »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #63

I might be wrong, but a whole bunch of heavily armed guys busting down doors in response to an anonymous phone call is not in the spirit of prioritizing de-escalation over violent resolutions. I want cops de-escalating situations, not shooting up the neighborhood, or going on high-speed chases on neighborhood streets. Now, I imagine swat teams don't like doxxing either. Sounds like a business opportunity.

May SWAT team guns shouldn't have independent triggers, but require some kind of consensus algorithm across SWAT team members for a pulled trigger to have an effect.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#137

Post by [deleted] »

tomlock wrote: post #39
mcantelon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#138

Post by aphextron »

nothis wrote: post #94
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…

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…

> 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.

This is because in your country it is exceedingly unlikely the cops will receive a barrage of high powered assault rifle fire after knocking. The militarization of police in the US is a complicated problem that ultimately stems from our proliferation of guns which turn every interaction cops have into a potentially deadly one.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#139

Post by rndgermandude »

tptacek wrote: post #102
rndgermandude wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Go on? By the definitions being used on this thread, a good part of all of journalism constitutes "doxing".

So what? Doxing isn't inherently evil or inherently good. It has to be seen in context, and it is your and my and the journalist's moral obligation to look at the context first and weigh the likely harm to the person you dox against the possible good it can do. And it doesn't matter if the information was kinda public in some obscure corner of the internet or some public record or commercial database before. Once you publicize their information, you create publicity and draw a target on that persons back.

Dox some criminal? OK, but you have to be sure your allegations have merit and you've done your due diligence[0]. This is mostly what Krebs does.

Dox some politician who had an extramarital affair? Maybe OK. Dox their extramarital partner? Probably not OK.

Dox the latest terrorist? Generally OK. Dox every person that ever came into contact with the terrorist? Not OK. Publish personal information about the victims of the terrorist without their (next of kin's) consent? Not OK, even if you only report information you got from their facebook.

Dox some kid who misbehaved once on the internet, thereby directing an army of assholes on twitter to take notice, dox the kid further and bully them? Not OK.

When I was young (pre-facebook era), one of my teachers got murdered; her husband was later convicted. Some (tabloid) journalists showed up like locusts camping around our school, offering money for our pictures and other private information about the victim, her husband and their kids. Not OK. The same journalists also found "public information from open sources" about e.g. the kids' memberships in youth groups and such, and published that and also went to those youth groups for more information like they did at our school. Not OK.

[0] There was more than one case where "helpful" people on the internet and sometimes journalists published the names of alleged criminals who turned out to be entirely innocent, which didn't stop people from bullying them or even neighbors from forming mobs to "visit" them at home.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#140

Post by GordonS »

grandmczeb wrote: post #132
tptacek wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brian Krebs does not appear to have posted Vincent Canfield and Jake Williams home addresses.

But he does appear to have posted personal information in an attempt to intimidate them. Even if you don’t want to call that doxxing, can we at least agree that’s not a very nice thing to do?

And Krebs still hasn't apologised for his childish behaviour, or even so much as commented in it - he's just sticking his head in the sand, hoping it's eventually forgotten about.

I've stopped reading his blog and tweets, and he went way, way, way down in estimation after this.

Post reply on HN