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

201–210 of 231 posts

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#201

Post by grandmczeb »

tptacek wrote: post #194
grandmczeb wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What obligation did Krebs have to be nice to these people? I’ll take that as an agreement that it wasn’t nice then? Regardless, I don’t think I said anywhere that he had an obligation to be nice , only that his comments were a violation of Twitter’s TOS. Which presumably he does have an obligation to follow since he’s using their platform. > The professional ethics rules of journalism have more the opposite directi…

As you can see upthread, it is plainly false that he violated Twitter’s TOS.

The only evidence I see up thread is your assertion “Twitter also explicitly exempts information available from public sources“ which is a stronger statement than Twitter’s own privacy page (“If the reported information was shared somewhere else before it was shared on Twitter [...] we may not treat this information as private”.) Twitter uses multiple factors to determine if a post is a violation, not all of which have to be satisfied, and of which being available through other sources is only one. Twitter also has a history of taking action against users who share otherwise publicly available information if the intent is malicious.

While it’s a debatable point, it’s most certainly not “plainly false” that he violated the TOS; Twitter would be well within bounds to take action against his account.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#202

Post by anigbrowl »

monksy wrote: post #197
anigbrowl wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the targeting part? Megan Squire is not int eh habit of SWATting people, nor has anyone promoted using her research as such.

She's creating a database of people labeled in that category. She's playing the "well I didn't say to go harass these people.. but here's a database of them"

I'm familiar with her database. She's not doxing them but pointing out the facts of their public relationships.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#203

Post by mcantelon »

SideQuark wrote: post #159
mcantelon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why do many people use "whataboutism" to wave away double standards?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#204

Post by mcantelon »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #163
zajio1am wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> During this period, no persons in the United States were killed in attacks carried out by persons believed to be motivated by ... extremist far left beliefs. Depends on what is counted as far-left extremism. There were anti-white / anti-police attacks associated with BLM: https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/IncidentSummary.aspx?gt... https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/IncidentSummary.aspx?gt...

Neither associated with leftist groups. The first was at most in anti-govt groups, which were clearly not left. The second was anti white. This info is easily found online from many places. What makes you think these were from far-left extremism? What groups or ideology did they profess to be a part of?

> The first was at most in anti-govt groups, which were clearly not left.

You don't need to be associated with a group to be an individual extremist deciding to advance a movement. The shooter's photographed doing a black power salute. The black power movement isn't right wing.

https://heavy.com/news/2016/07/micah-xavier-x-johnson-dallas...

While there may certainly be more extremists on the right the idea that someone on the left can't be an extremist, or that there are no leftist extremists, doesn't make much sense.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#205

Post by dmix »

jMyles wrote: post #187
dmix wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> All 911 calls are and should be taken seriously though. It depends what "taken seriously" means here. If it means followed-up upon in a rapid way to see if there is any corroborating information to indicate that there's a real emergency, then sure. If it means instead to suppose that any of the provided information is true tout court, then no, this is a recipe for ongoing disaster. It's important to have a rapid, a…

Plus a calm rational authoritative person on the ground who isn't in Captain America hero mode but instead expects verifiable and multi-sourced evidence that the situation requires escalation to extreme force. Rather than relying on his lackeys to observe for very lax rules of engagement based on some hyper-pessimistic risk models.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#206

Post by ryanlol »

tptacek wrote: post #4
npiht wrote: post #3

This is bold coming from someone who doxxes people publicly. https://hacked.wtf/2019/04/26/dear-brian-krebs-no-more-doxxi...

Exactly what obligation does Brian Krebs have to maintain the anonymity of random people on the Internet?

What obligation do I have to not post "358765683"? None, I'd assume, it's simply rude.

What obligation does anyone have to behave well?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#207

Post by sa46 »

mcny wrote: post #59
donatj wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drive by, see if there's any other evidence of any of this, leave if there isn't - because an unverified phone call alone really shouldn't count as probable cause?

> Drive by, see if there's any other evidence of any of this, leave if there isn't - because an unverified phone call alone really shouldn't count as probable cause? Exactly! Especially since law enforcement has (successfully!) argued that they have no legal duty to serve and protect you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#L... You c…

> since law enforcement has (successfully!) argued that they have no legal duty to serve and protect you

IANAL. My understanding is police have a duty to the public at large, not to an individual person outside of a special relationship (i.e. witness protection). If the police did have a duty to individuals, the state would be unable to allocate police resources to best serve the public. Essentially, individual priorities would DDOS police resources. In the case you reference:

> a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. [...] A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. [...] Publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#208

Post by jMyles »

dmix wrote: post #205
jMyles wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All 911 calls are and should be taken seriously though. It depends what "taken seriously" means here. If it means followed-up upon in a rapid way to see if there is any corroborating information to indicate that there's a real emergency, then sure. If it means instead to suppose that any of the provided information is true tout court, then no, this is a recipe for ongoing disaster. It's important to have a rapid, a…

Plus a calm rational authoritative person on the ground who isn't in Captain America hero mode but instead expects verifiable and multi-sourced evidence that the situation requires escalation to extreme force. Rather than relying on his lackeys to observe for very lax rules of engagement based on some hyper-pessimistic risk models.

> Captain America hero mode

I don't really follow the Marvel universe very closely outside of X-men, but isn't Captain America a figure who stands in contrast to government overreach, Nazism, police brutality, etc? I think of him as being a sort of left libertarian.

I think we might actually need more Captain Americas in these situations, not less.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#209

Post by [deleted] »

FireBeyond wrote: post #154
jplayer01 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#210

Post by donw »

whyaduck wrote: post #177
donw wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubtful. The United States has had a high level of gun ownership for several hundred years. The police response of "respond to anonymous tip by kicking down the door and opening fire" seems to be a mostly post-9/11 thing. I suspect that the root causes are multifold: (1) No-knock warrants became legal in 1995 to prevent the "destruction of evidence" during drug busts. (2) Americans got really paranoid after 9/11, an…

High powered semi-automatic long and hand guns with high capacity magazines loaded with hollow-point or armor piercing rounds have not been common in the US for several hundred years.

Winchester repearting rifles were popular as of 1870. As they held 16 rounds, could be rapidly fired, and were easily reloaded, there is a strong argument that these were, in fact, the first assault rifles.

Modern semi-automatic (double-action) revolvers were commonplace as of 1900.

Both of the above fired highly lethal ammunition, with rates of fire and reload not that far from modern semi-automatics, which were themselves common by the 1920s.

At which time you could mail-order a machine gun to your front door, which is So Not Even Remotely Close To Legal today.

Body armor suitable for police wouldn't become commonplace until the 2000s.

Ergo, for 130+ years, the police faced a populace armed with high-capacity assault weapons. And for most of that time, they did so with six-shot .38 revolvers and no bulletproof vests.

And only in the past twenty-odd years has kicking in doors with guns blazing become, somehow, necessary.

So, no, gun ownership, even of high-powered, high-capacity assault weapons, doesn't correlate at all to police violence.

Post reply on HN