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

101–110 of 231 posts

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#101

Post by 4ntonius8lock »

I'm very sorry for the Journalists affected, but I have to say I'm glad it happened to them. We need high profile issues like these.

It's the only way it will change.

Untold thousands of regular joe's get hit with this every year. No one cares since it only happens to 'the bad guys'.

When you have authoritarianism, it doesn't always go your way. That's why we should be against authoritarian tactics, such as sending armed men to break down doors and terrorize people over an anonymous phone call (I personally think we should draw the line in the sand much more on the side of freedom, but this basic level should be agreed by all)

I grew up long enough ago when there was a feeling that the Western world was superior to the Iron and Bamboo curtains because these things didn't happen in America.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#102

Post by tptacek »

rndgermandude wrote: post #95
tptacek wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#103

Post by mcantelon »

tptacek wrote: post #100
mcantelon wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#104

Post by tptacek »

grandmczeb wrote: post #98
tptacek wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If he can point to a public source, it doesn't matter how long it took him to identify that source. If the city someone lives in is on their public LinkedIn profile, it's not secret. If you ask me how the weather is in Chicago, or even in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago, you're not violating Twitter's rules.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#105

Post by jonas21 »

wongarsu wrote: post #51
jonny_eh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 into.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#106

Post by jachee »

mcantelon wrote: post #84
tomlock wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right wing extremists have killed more people in the last ten years than any other political group.

Islamism seems to still be the number one source of terrorism fatalities: https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/wha...

Your racism/xenophobia is showing.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#107

Post by tptacek »

mcantelon wrote: post #103
tptacek wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#108

Post by tptacek »

mirimir wrote: post #81
rndgermandude wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's my response to your question about how you could dox a journalist. Now, Krebs doxed people in the past who didn't want their true identities revealed. Often because those people were up to no good, but sometimes Krebs went a bit overboard in my opinion. More in general, and I am not saying Krebs ever did this, there are valid reasons why people might not want their true identities widely revealed. Think wh…

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.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#109

Post by MegaButts »

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…

> 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 into.

I'm not saying being a police officer is an easy job, but isn't that what they signed up for? "To protect and serve" (despite being legally challenged and rejected when actually taken to court where an officer refused to engage with shooters) seems to be their mantra, and they talk about putting their lives on the line for the public safety.

I fear the problem is the police are more interested in protecting themselves than protecting the public, at least in the United States.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#110

Post by akhilcacharya »

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 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.

Post reply on HN