Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 275 posts

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#31

Post by gnicholas »

jahewson wrote: post #15
macintux wrote: post #4

I hope that at some point swatting becomes a felony akin to attempted murder.

That seems excessive. I would consider swatting lesser than attempted voluntary manslaughter which carries a maximum 10 year federal sentence. It’s also typically prosecuted at the state level, which kinda messes things up for the Feds. Reckless endangerment feels more appropriate, perhaps a bit too soft at 2 years maximum, though it is rarely prosecuted at the federal level. So 5 years maximum for the federal conspi…

Attempted manslaughter is a federal crime? This doesn't sound right to me, as a (former) lawyer. I would think that special circumstances would be necessary for a homicide or attempted homicide to be a federal crime, which would explain why there might be a mandatory minimum.

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#32

Post by everfree »

Kibae wrote: post #23

> conduct regular scans for Ring passwords compromised in non-Ring breaches Does this mean that Ring stores plaintext passwords?

No. You take the compromised plaintext password, hash it using the same algorithm you typically do for your customers, then you check the hash for matches in your database of existing customer password hashes.

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#33

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

Kibae wrote: post #23

> conduct regular scans for Ring passwords compromised in non-Ring breaches Does this mean that Ring stores plaintext passwords?

No. They use rainbow tables: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_table

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#34

Post by olliej »

jahewson wrote: post #15
macintux wrote: post #4

I hope that at some point swatting becomes a felony akin to attempted murder.

That seems excessive. I would consider swatting lesser than attempted voluntary manslaughter which carries a maximum 10 year federal sentence. It’s also typically prosecuted at the state level, which kinda messes things up for the Feds. Reckless endangerment feels more appropriate, perhaps a bit too soft at 2 years maximum, though it is rarely prosecuted at the federal level. So 5 years maximum for the federal conspi…

No. If I drive to a random house and start shooting at it, I don’t get to call that reckless endangerment. If I kill someone I sure as hell don’t get to call it an accident.

It does not matter if you think how is police operate is unreasonable, what matters is that what they do is well known and established, and the outcome is foreseeable.

Also, if your best defense is “this isn’t attempted murder, it’s just terrorism” I have questions.

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#35

Post by ch4s3 »

idiotsecant wrote: post #24
kibwen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely poor example that further illustrates the murderous recklessness of swat teams. The fact that there was a shooter at Uvalde was obvious upon arriving at the scene. Meanwhile, a traditional swat involves a completely innocuous house with no apparent hostiles, because there aren't any hostiles, and yet deaths still occur because of the recklessness of the swat teams. Imagine if you had a school wit…

Are you proposing a mechanism by which this decision can reliably be made? If not I'm not sure you're asking for something reasonable. The first person who dies because the police were too slow or too weak to respond will cause as much outrage as what you express here.

Well yes, if there are gunshots or similar sounds indicating urgent entry is needed then do so, otherwise maybe knock on the door. People die all the time because police don't intervene, there was even a Supreme Court ruling that found that police have no duty to intervene to save your life. The least they can do is not rashly toss an incendiary device through your window or into your child's crib[1].

[1]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#37

Post by pessimizer »

macintux wrote: post #4

I hope that at some point swatting becomes a felony akin to attempted murder.

I hope that one day we can trust cops not to murder people based on anonymous phoned-in tips. Seems more rational than expecting random marginal people and the mentally ill to care about some draconian penalty for something they don't think they're likely to get caught for.

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#38

Post by olliej »

nickff wrote: post #5
macintux wrote: post #4

I hope that at some point swatting becomes a felony akin to attempted murder.

Proving attempted murder is very difficult, but "SWATting" already falls under the broad umbrella of 'assault'. It seems like the police are likely guilty of criminal negligence as well.

Genuinely curious: What is the crime if I shoot a gun at a house knowing that it is occupied?it seems obvious that if I kill an occupant it would be murder, but what happens if I don’t?

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#39

Post by pessimizer »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #11
macintux wrote: post #4

I hope that at some point swatting becomes a felony akin to attempted murder.

Why is it always boys and men who do swatting?

Boys and men are conservatively responsible for like 90% of violence, from suicide to dropping nukes.

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#40

Post by teeray »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #26
macintux wrote: post #4

I hope that at some point swatting becomes a felony akin to attempted murder.

It already is considered attempted murder by some localities. The issue is usually catching the swatter. They often use anonymous VOIP services and voice changers (if they are even in the same country as the target), so it is effectively impossible to track them down.

The question is: why is it possible to place a 911 call without all that information being laid bare before the dispatcher and logged. There are extraordinary regulations on carriers for E911, and thus a means to impose that requirement.
Post reply on HN