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

141–150 of 231 posts

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#141

Post by waldoh »

stcredzero wrote: post #115
akhilcacharya wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't agree that it's a fringes issue at all... Trump is filling stadiums with people making racist chants. These aren't the fringes of the right

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#142

Post by orf »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #136
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.

Better get Jepsen to test it. That would be an interesting read.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#143

Post by joe_the_user »

aphextron wrote: post #138
nothis wrote: post #94

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. 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 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/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/02/...

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#144

Post by dang »

kyleblarson wrote: post #134
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?

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#145

Post by jacobush »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #136
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.

Wow, I can imagine that going wrong in so many ways. Executions squads come to mind. Groupthink. Even less liability. Instant guaranteed kill instead of only probably kill, even fewer annoying survivors in court.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#146

Post by tptacek »

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?

What obligation did Krebs have to be nice to these people? Were they sources of his? Did he have a prior relationship with them? We can stipulate a bunch of scenarios in which Krebs would have been obligated not to publish Canfield's name, but it is not a general principle that he is enjoined from doing so; you have to identify the specific relationship that creates the obligation.

Sometimes those relationships are quite broad! For instance: on HN, it is generally verboten to out people. That's a rule we've adopted to maintain civil discourse on the site, and something we agree to when we decide to participate here. But HN has lots of rules that are not in fact rules in the real world; for instance, 'pvg regularly chides 'dang for enforcing the HN's idiosyncratic (but good) rule about not putting quotation marks around paraphrases of other people's comments.

Does any such circumstance apply here? The professional ethics rules of journalism have more the opposite directionality, cautioning journalists against maintaining anonymity of sources to the detriment of the readership.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#147

Post by zajio1am »

kybernetikos wrote: post #65
stcredzero wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, though for awhile in the past few years, the Far Left was catching up, though the Far Right surged ahead in this year. However, in terms of numbers of events of violence, intimidation, and minor assault, the Far Left has been quite busy. The left leaning media just shows an extreme bias in discussing these events. All of that stuff is bad, and bad for us.

> This is true, though for awhile in the past few years, the Far Left was catching up, though the Far Right surged ahead in this year. According to https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsO... there have been no deaths from left wing terrorism in the USA for nearly 40 years. You can read the same information here: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf > Specifically, tables 1 and 2 show a descr…

> 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...

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#148

Post by donw »

aphextron wrote: post #138
nothis wrote: post #94

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. 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 ou…

The United States has had a high level of gun ownership for several hundred years.

SWATting and police militarization seems to have started after the September 11, 2001 attack in New York.

Regardless of your opinion on the issue, it's pretty clear that "gun ownership" and "police kicking down doors" don't correlate.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#149

Post by chucksmash »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #136
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.

Novel idea, but how do you handle disagreement between the first person who can see an imminent threat and the person in the back of the stack in a way that doesn't get the first guy through the door killed more often, doesn't just become a rubber stamp, blanket approval "to be on the safe side", and offers improved outcomes compared to relying on the training and judgment of the individual in front with a gun?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#150

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN