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

151–160 of 231 posts

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#151

Post by FireBeyond »

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…

Even as a first responder (Fire/EMS), there's more that can be done even before then.

A fatal SWATing recently should have raised so many red flags - caller was from an overseas number, described the house as two story when it was one, gave the wrong house color, and said that they could see things through the window from the street (when there were no windows visible from the street).

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#152

Post by rmtech »

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…

Well why are you allowed to make phone calls that appear to come from somewhere they don't come from?

Furthermore, why do police feel obligated to respond to a phonecall that could be fake but not to a tweet, email, IM, etc?

The system is broken, phones that can call cops should have strict provenance standards.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#153

Post by showdeadplease »

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.

[dead]

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#154

Post by FireBeyond »

jplayer01 wrote: post #112
jonas21 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Police Departments have _successfully_ argued in court that they have neither a legal or moral obligation to serve, or protect, the public.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#155

Post by tptacek »

rndgermandude wrote: post #139
tptacek wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When you say "doxing isn't inherently evil or good", you're putting us on the same page.

We do not agree about the particulars. For instance: the extramarital partners of politicians? To me, fair game. Kids who commit crimes on the Internet? To me, fair game.

Counterexamples? Sure. Undocumented immigrants who could be forcibly deported. I have a special obligation not to help ICE find those people. Iranian democracy activists. I have a special obligation not to subvert advocacy for democracy in authoritarian regimes.

But I don't have a general obligation to help maintain someone's pseudonymity, nor does anyone have the general right to restrain my own speech to protect their pseudonymity.

I understand that the rule exists on Reddit, and, to a lesser extent, here. And I respect the rule... on Reddit. And here. But in real life? I have a problem with message board norms leaking into the real world.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#156

Post by ajxs »

joe_the_user wrote: post #143
aphextron wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ou…

But that is ... wrong. The US cops have talked about escalating risks for years but US cops haven't faced actual escalating dangers. One can track the actual danger faced by police and it has been declining. The problem is the average citizen gets their information from TV dramas where cops indeed constantly face dangers. headline: "Once again: police work is NOT getting more dangerous" https://www.washingtonpost.com…

It's disingenuous to ask us to accept this data alone as a reason to disregard the risks that American police face in the course of their work. Whether their job is safer today than at the height of the so-called 'crack epidemic' is irrelevant to the reality of the day to day risks that they face. For starters, this data doesn't include the numbers of police non-fatally harmed in the course of their work. Even still, their risk of being fatally shot is 5x higher on average than the general citizen.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#157

Post by FireBeyond »

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'm trying to explain why de-escalation is not the preferred tactical response from the police when it comes to active shooter scenarios.

As a first responder who has trained with, and documented photographically, multiple active shooter scenarios (training, at high schools, community colleges and even malls) and responded to more than one...

These scenarios are not active shooter events. That is someone well, actively shooting. Usually with confirmation from 911 dispatchers ("we have gunshots in the background of the call").

Usually these situations are highly Hollywood-ized. One caller described "I can see from the street through the window - they have the whole family on their knees, hands on heads and have guns to their heads, about to execute them all".

More worryingly are stories of sending quantities of drugs (often possession, not even supply levels) to a residence - that shouldn't be able to evoke a no-knock SWAT response in the first place.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#158

Post by FireBeyond »

dmix wrote: post #50
jMyles wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> as long as phone calls can be spoofed to look like it's coming from "inside" the house.

Many times they don't even need to bother that far. A fatal incident last year involved a 911 call from an overseas number (that couldn't accurately describe the house he was supposedly looking at as he called). There has to be some astronomical odds about you internationally roaming, and seeing a supposed multiple execution style homicide "from the sidewalk", but yet, SWAT still showed up, and killed someone.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#159

Post by SideQuark »

mcantelon wrote: post #86
jmull wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s some data: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf

Does the data show that left wing extremism should be ignored because there's not as much or it's lower intensity? Why do many people seem to have a hard time condemning political violence in all forms and by all parties?

Why do many people give false equivalence on disparate actions? Whataboutism?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#160

Post by lowdose »

joe_the_user wrote: post #143
aphextron wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ou…

But that is ... wrong. The US cops have talked about escalating risks for years but US cops haven't faced actual escalating dangers. One can track the actual danger faced by police and it has been declining. The problem is the average citizen gets their information from TV dramas where cops indeed constantly face dangers. headline: "Once again: police work is NOT getting more dangerous" https://www.washingtonpost.com…

From the other side of the pond it looks like the US police dresses up like a military unit with supplies from past wars. SWAT teams that show up in war tanks.

I haven't seen many cop series lately but my impression is most police actors in hollywood don't dress up like John Rambo in fighting in the jungle.

Post reply on HN