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

161–170 of 231 posts

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#161

Post by donw »

davidw wrote: post #57
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…

> I understand police in the US has to adapt to the assumption that everyone has a gun That might be a big part of the 'root cause' of this issue.

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, and more tolerant of this sort of police activity.

(3) Increasingly harsh prison conditions and unfair sentencing encourages suspects to fight back, rather than comply with law enforcement.

(4) We have a number of well-funded and well-trained paramilitary criminal organizations in the United States, thanks largely to the War on Drugs and decades of poorly-thought-out immigration policy.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#162

Post by FireBeyond »

zajio1am wrote: post #147
kybernetikos wrote: post #65

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. 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...

Apropos of anything else, it's interesting that:

> he needed to bring destruction 'upon bad cops as well as good cops' because of what he saw as the justice system's failure to prosecute bad police officers who commit crimes

wanting society to hold criminal police officers accountable is a "extremist far left belief", regardless of this individual's deranged methodology.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#163

Post by ChrisLomont »

zajio1am wrote: post #147
kybernetikos wrote: post #65

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. 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...

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?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#164

Post by donw »

ajxs wrote: post #156
joe_the_user wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

True, but I think the general idea is not that police work isn't dangerous -- it is! -- but rather, that it has become less dangerous over the decades.

I don't have an opinion on that, having not looked at the data, but it is entirely plausible.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#165

Post by dmix »

cosmodisk wrote: post #80

Absolutely creepy website...Went on to see what they've got there.. Randomly clicked on one of the names on the list..Some kid's photo,with all his contact details,his parents names,photos,phone numbers,etc..FFS

Sheesh, imagine if they had access to Facebook's data.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#166

Post by dmitrygr »

itsgrimetime wrote: post #12
tptacek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm going to interpret this as charitably as possible: Are you attempting to bring attention to the fact that doxxing is rarely prosecuted, even though it's illegal and there's boatloads of evidence that it is in fact a form of violence? This is the only way I can imagine this question being raised that doesn't assume you're trolling.

> even though it's illegal

Please cite that. Last I checked, SCOTUS was very clear that there is only one type of forbidden speech: fighting words. See [1], [2], [3], and [4]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#167

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#168

Post by tptacek »

vageli wrote: post #93
itsgrimetime wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to interpret this as charitably as possible: Are you attempting to bring attention to the fact that doxxing is rarely prosecuted, even though it's illegal and there's boatloads of evidence that it is in fact a form of violence? This is the only way I can imagine this question being raised that doesn't assume you're trolling.

> I'm going to interpret this as charitably as possible: Are you attempting to bring attention to the fact that doxxing is rarely prosecuted, even though it's illegal and there's boatloads of evidence that it is in fact a form of violence? This is the only way I can imagine this question being raised that doesn't assume you're trolling. This is a genuine question, but is doxxing really illegal? I recently read that p…

Of course publishing someone's name and public LinkedIn profile isn't illegal. It doesn't even violate Twitter Law™️.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#169

Post by rndgermandude »

tptacek wrote: post #155
rndgermandude wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>the extramarital partners of politicians? To me, fair game.

I knew somebody, part of our gang of friends, who had a one night stand with a local "personality", was then revealed by some "journalist" only giving a the first name and printing a picture with a black bar across the eyes (which is still more than enough for people who knew him to identify him, of course), outed as gay in the process, didn't even know the other dude was married or a "personality", and after being shunned and bullied by a lot of people including his parents and grandparents ended up hanging himself in a tree near the place in the woods where our gang used to barbecue in the summers. At least his parents showed up for his funeral.

I have no doubt the journalist who doxed him had no intention of causing that amount of harm. And yet, the journalist could have considered the situation a little more thoroughly, considering that the the identity of my friend had no bearing on the story whatsoever. I can only hope it was a mistake that this journalist learned from, and not general disregard for other human beings' welfare.

And I am telling you that story in the hopes you and others agreeing with your "fair game" will keep it in mind if they ever are in the position where they have to make a moral decision whether to dox or not dox somebody.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#170

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

That's part of the problem, to be sure. Let's not decide which factors are the most important before compiling a fuller list.
Post reply on HN