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

181–190 of 231 posts

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#181

Post by jonnycomputer »

jacobush wrote: post #145
jonnycomputer wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, the thought was to avoid a single agent having a fear reflex and pulling the trigger. In fact, I think the situation now is that one spooked officer shooting off the gun causes other officers to get spooked too and pull the trigger.

I think under those circumstances, having a consensus algorithm in place would diminish the likelihood of it occurring, since, presumably multiple agents would have to have the fear reflex at the same moment. Unless agents are getting feedback from others about their trigger pools, or decide before hand that they are going to do it all together, I just don't see the scenarios you describe being realized. Of course, if cops go in with the idea that they are gonna kill someone, then they are no longer behaving lawfully.

My real issue with the idea is how practical it would be. If an officer's gun didn't go off when it should have, and they were killed, then people are going to be really upset.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#182

Post by joe_the_user »

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,…

Police work is less dangerous than many common occupations in the US but it is indeed still dangerous.

The question is whether this level of danger is a sufficient to justify police tactics that severely endanger civilians such as no-knock raids - factors that make "SWATing" so dangerous for the average person.

The further factor here is that the false belief that there's an armed camp ready to attack cops instantly with automatic rifles can give one the distorted impression that no-knock and related tactics will save lives.

However, the reality is there are few people ready to knowingly engage the cops (since even if you win, you lose against the authorities) but there citizens who have guns ready for persons known who might be breaking into their home and so SWAT tactics can be as likely to draw fire and casualties as to avoid them in the real world. And kill innocent of course.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#183

Post by stordoff »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #87
Mirioron wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe the police can still go check, but just not do it guns blazing? They can ring the door bell and ask to check around. If they're afraid of being fired upon they could even use a police robot or something.

Or even stand some distance from the door and shout "THIS IS THE POLICE, EVERYONE GET OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP" through a bullhorn; it's going to be much less disruptive to everyone than a flashbang through the window, and the officers can still be hidden behind cover in case of actual criminals wielding guns being present.

"They've threatened to kill me the if the police show up."

I don't think there can be any one-size-fits-all solution to this - each case must be assessed on its own merits.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#184

Post by weaksauce »

donw wrote: post #164
ajxs wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i mean cops do have a fairly dangerous job but they also by no means the most or even comparatively that dangerous a job. if you look at the stats being a roofer is 1.5x more dangerous. being a delivery driver is about the same danger as a cop. industrial machine installer/repair/maintenance workers have a slightly higher fatality rate per 100k compared to cops.

stoking the fears of the average citizen to be fearful of cops likely increases their risk of death on the job which is all this does.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#185

Post by tptacek »

rndgermandude wrote: post #169
tptacek wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would generally have a problem with deliberately outing an LGBT person (or an undocumented immigrant, or any of a number of at-risk groups of people). And performatively revealing sensitive information about anyone for no reason at all is at least unneighborly (I can't go so far as to call it immoral). But none of that is what Krebs did. He violated the code of a subculture he does not belong to, in a manner that journalists do all the time. I think this particular subculture is entitled and unrealistic and that their weird expectations deserve to be challenged.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#186

Post by tptacek »

mirimir wrote: post #131
tptacek wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mainstream reporters semi-routinely break actual laws to break stories, and are received as heroes for it.

I'm sure that the doxx site in TFA is "received as heroes" by some. As with many things, much depends on whose ox is getting gored. Also, "semi-routinely break actual laws" is a huge bin. Reporters also get sued for libel. And sometimes lose. Edit: And hey, once you're "break[ing] actual laws", you're a criminal. And by Krebs' standard, you're fair game.

Sure? OK? And?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#187

Post by jMyles »

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,…

> 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, anonymous reporting system. It's also important to have auxiliary systems in place to verify information that comes in through this system.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#188

Post by girvo »

microtherion wrote: post #89
Mirioron wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But many other countries have guns too, eg Switzerland. They don't seem to suffer from the same issue though.

This week an armed man was shot by police in Switzerland. One detail in the newspaper reports that stood out for me was that the investigation of the shooting was immediately transferred to an out of state police department, and that this is apparently standard practice for police use of weapons. In contrast to this, in the US, there appears to be practically no accountability for the police: https://www.forbes.com/s…

A man was shot dead this week in my city in Australia, after charging at officers with a samurai sword at the conclusion of a siege. The incident was immediately handed to an Ethics investigation; I have major issues with how the QPS and AFP are run, but this isn't one of them.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#189

Post by stordoff »

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.

Interesting idea, but the following two scenarios look identical to the consensus algorithm:

* One officer sees a suspect drawing a weapon, and reacts more quickly than the others or the suspect is not visible to the other officers, and thus fires a justified shot and saves a fellow officer's life.

* One officer misinterprets an innocent gesture, fires an unjustified shot and takes the life of a suspect/innocent person.

Furthermore, I'd worry that the diffusion of responsibility means that the officers fire more often, under the belief that their fellow officers agreed with their course of action, or are indicating that they are in danger (by trying to fire), or that they don't believe they alone have taken the decision to kill, so can justify shooting at a lower perceived level of threat.

See for instance firing squads:

> This is believed to reinforce the sense of diffusion of responsibility among the firing squad members. This diffusion of responsibility makes the execution process more reliable because the members are more likely to aim to kill if they are not entirely blamed for it, or if there is a chance they did not fire the lethal shot. It also allows each member of the firing squad to believe afterwards that he did not personally fire a fatal shot—for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "conscience round".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#190

Post by grandmczeb »

tptacek wrote: post #146
grandmczeb wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 q…

> 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 directionality, cautioning journalists against maintaining anonymity of sources to the detriment of the readership.

Krebs is not posting their names and location as a journalistic act, he’s posting them to serve as retribution for speaking badly about something he has a personal involvement in. I don’t know what the professional ethics rules of journalism say about that, but I think it’s something most people would agree is pretty shitty.

Post reply on HN