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

211–220 of 231 posts

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#211

Post by joe_the_user »

closeparen wrote: post #195
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…

How could you distinguish "the situation isn't getting any more dangerous" from "risk mitigation tactics are working"?

One factor is that the decline in police deaths has tracked the decline in murders overall. If you had successful risk mitigation, civilian deaths would be going up.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#212

Post by kybernetikos »

mcantelon wrote: post #204
ChrisLomont wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 someo…

> the idea that someone on the left can't be an extremist

Well of course it doesn't, which is why nobody was saying that. There's been plenty of horrific deadly left wing violence historically, both in the US and other countries. It's just that in the last few decades and limited to the US, there has been little to no deadly left wing violence, a time period which has seen quite a lot of deadly right wing violence.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#213

Post by Tepix »

RickJWagner wrote: post #191
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…

I disagree. I own guns, as my father did before me and his father before him. All my brothers own guns. We're sportsmen, hunting is a popular recreation where we live. Of all the guns in my family, not one has ever hurt a human being. Not a single incident, over many decades and who knows how many shots fired. I have many friends with the same situation-- I don't know of anyone who has ever shot another human being.…

Guns are so dangerous, is it really worth it just to have "a popular recreation"?

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#214

Post by tlear »

MegaButts wrote: post #109
jonas21 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Finding people who are willing to police some of the areas in US(it really is only certain places) without resorting to what they do now is VERY hard.

Being a cop in an area like Japan, where you mostly drink tea and stand watch outside of the police box trying to fight boredom’s is one thing. Responding to a call in Baltimore is another.

Cops are cops they are not Seal team, they collect paycheck and want to come back home alive and undamaged, expecting anything else from them is unrealistic.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#215

Post by tinus_hn »

penagwin wrote: post #43
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.

To play devils advocate a little - If I'm a 911 operator and the person calling says "They have gun next door - there's shouting, I'm really scared WHAT DO I DO?!" What do we do? Turn them down? Ask for proof? From the police perspective - they're entering a potentially dangerous environment, which means gun drawn until the environment is cleared. To your point though - the fact that the swatting has resulted in inno…

The solution to send an officer who checks out things without immediately escalating. Breaking down doors and going in with guns blazing is an overreaction to an unreliable, untraceable report.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#216

Post by tinus_hn »

MisterTea wrote: post #36
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.

How about a phone system that does not allow random people to spoof numbers with little to no effort. That would be a nice start. Would also curb all those friggin spam calls I get from random numbers.

The police can see through basic spoofing like what happens with your spam calls. SWATting is done using throwaway voip connections where you can see the number but it’s worthless.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#217

Post by mirimir »

tptacek wrote: post #186
mirimir wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It was dumb of me to get into this thread. Arguing about the morality of Krebs' blog in a discussion about neofascist (and arguably, ironic neofascist) doxxing and SWATing was off-topic whataboutism. So sorry.

But for what it's worth, I'll briefly clarify my position. I'm rather anarchistic, but not very collectivist or communitarian. I believe that we're all free to do what we like, consistent with our principals and values. Notwithstanding whatever laws exist. And that includes self defense, and weeding out troublemakers.

So in that sense, I agree that Krebs has the right to doxx supposed criminals. But I also believe that others arguably have the right to act against those who attack them. And of course, everyone else has the right to act against those who attack them, recursively.

So it's fair to root for Krebs, and to attack neofascist doxxers. But, in my opinion, it's deceptive to argue that one is moral, and the other is evil.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#218

Post by mirimir »

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.

Yes^N. Police in the US have become insanely militarized. And there's the fundamental "escalate in response to resistance" approach. Which in part has bled over from the military. Shock and awe. Show of force.

Maybe it works in military conflicts, but in civilian policing, it gets too many ~innocents killed.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#219

Post by mirimir »

donw wrote: post #148
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…

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.

As I recall, it was the War on Drugs that drove it, long before 9/11.

Re: SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

#220

Post by mirimir »

donw wrote: post #210
whyaduck wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Right, as you say, it started with the War on Drugs.
Post reply on HN