Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday April 16 2015, @09:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-desserts dept.

A New Jersey state legislator who is sponsoring a bill against swatting, has himself been swatted:

According to a report by NJ.com, Moriarty received a phone call at his home on Saturday from a police officer asking if everything was okay; the assemblyman was then informed that someone had anonymously called in a report of a shooting at the home. He was then told to describe his clothing and step outside, where he saw a crowd of officers armed with "helmets, flak jackets and rifles."

There was no mention if the legislator questioned the over-militarizing of the police or no-knock raids...

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:43PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:43PM (#171785) Journal

    Pragmatical: how is this to be enforced? By de-anonymising the emergency callers? Are you sure you want that?

    If this keeps up, the answer to that question won't matter.

    I'm assuming the "it" (that you refer as "keeping up") is the swatting. If I'm right, then the next thoughts (somehow in the "critical" category) that cross my mind are:

    • ownership of firearms is regulated already. Have this stopped the use of firearms for criminal purposes? (of course not. So why should I expected swatting to stop because of extra regulation? The criminals aren't going to care anyway)
    • If you only have a hammer, all the problems look like nails. Is it impossible to invent other less dangerous tools which could be used instead of the SWAT team [forbes.com]?

    Further reading - a 2006 (that's 9 years ago) report on the SWAT uses Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America 2006 [cato.org] (PDF warning: small footprint - 1.64 MB, but 103 pages). Some excerpts for your convenience:

    [PDF page 12] - In 1997 alone, the Pentagon handed over more than 1.2 million pieces of military equipment to local police departments.

    [PDF page 15] - By the early 1980s there were 3,000 annual SWAT deployments, by 1996 there were 30,000, and by 2001 there were 40,000.[...]
    In small- to medium-sized cities, Kraska estimates that 80 percent of SWAT callouts are now for warrant service. In large cities, it’s about 75 percent. These numbers, too, have been on the rise since the early 1980s. Orange County, Florida, deployed its SWAT team 619 times during one five-year period in the 1990s. Ninety-four percent of those call- outs were to serve search warrants, not for hostage situations or police standoffs.

    [PDF page 17] - SWAT teams are now being used to respond even to calls about angry dogs and domestic disputes.

    [PDF page 20] - More evidence for the effect militarization is having on the mindset of civilian police offi- cers can be found in the words and actions of civilian officers and police officials themselves. Los Angeles police chief Daryl Gates, for exam- ple, once suggested that casual drug use amounts to “treason,” and that offenders should be “be taken out and shot.”

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Friday April 17 2015, @12:14AM

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @12:14AM (#171795)

    I'm assuming the "it" (that you refer as "keeping up") is the swatting.

    Correct! I do want to be clear, though, that I'm all for de-militarizing the police force. My response has more to do with what we can expect the actual reaction to be. Swatting won't bring us any closer to that change happening. Instead they're going to try to find the easiest solution to the problem, and de-anonymizing 911 and punishing offenses with a fine might actually be it. I'm not advocating it, I'm saying that the people trying to make that statement by abusing that service will have as much luck as somebody curing their RSI by typing up a lengthy essay about it.

    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 17 2015, @12:43AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @12:43AM (#171802) Journal

      My response has more to do with what we can expect the actual reaction to be. Swatting won't bring us any closer to that change happening.

      I concur.
      Now, couple it with "Criminalizing swatting won't stop it" and (re)consider, for example, (the "generalized you" here) how willing are you to disclose your private info (e.g. address) on social media (security - trade-off between your protection cost and the attacker cost).

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday April 17 2015, @12:52AM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @12:52AM (#171806)

        Now, couple it with "Criminalizing swatting won't stop it" ...

        I'm not quite with you on this one. We may have to agree to disagree, but I think if they de-anonymized it *and* made sure that you'd get punished even if you, for example, swatted somebody in Florida from a computer in Alaska, that a couple of high-profile busts would dramatically reduce swatting. I'll concede that it's unlikely that last stipulation would make it, though.

        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @12:57AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @12:57AM (#171811)

          First, these fools won't be able to de-anonymize it. Second, people will, of course, ignore the law. We already know that Tough On Crime doesn't do shit.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday April 17 2015, @01:07AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @01:07AM (#171818) Journal

          I'm not quite with you on this one. We may have to agree to disagree, but I think if they de-anonymized it *and* made sure that you'd get punished even if you, for example, swatted somebody in Florida from a computer in Alaska, that a couple of high-profile busts would dramatically reduce swatting.

          New business segment opens to Russian hackers: SWAT your neighbour for only $50 - you know you can't do it yourself anymore. Serious discount for bulk-buying.
          New business segment opens to Russian mafia: "pay your ransom or get swatted - a minor inconvenience. But ignore us twice, we'll frame you as the caller... just be reasonable, why risk jail?".

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 17 2015, @01:53AM

    by tathra (3367) on Friday April 17 2015, @01:53AM (#171840)

    Los Angeles police chief Daryl Gates, for exam- ple, once suggested that casual drug use amounts to “treason,” and that offenders should be “be taken out and shot.”

    if only he really thought this, then he'd be shooting alcoholics and cigarette smokers; i have no doubt the asshole drinks alcohol and probably smokes too, making him just another violent hypocrite. instead what he means is that he thinks any use of drugs that aren't blessed by the state is deserving of execution, while abusing state-blessed drugs like alcohol is fine even if they're far more toxic to the both the individual and society. this dumbass has completely drank the DEA cool-aid and does no thinking for himself. at least some of his coworkers [www.leap.cc] and former coworkers are sensible people who put facts and evidence over transparent propaganda.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 17 2015, @02:10AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @02:10AM (#171847) Journal

      making him just another violent hypocrite

      Interesting, isn't it? I mean, the linked Cato report.

      if only he really thought this, then he'd be shooting alcoholics and cigarette smokers

      You can include food in the highly addictive substances class: you mother gets you used with it after birth and if you cease taking it regularly all your life, well... nasty withdraw symptoms, comma then death are sure to happen.
      Even more, I hear the addiction is transmitted from mother to the unborn baby during pregnancy!!!

      (Offtopic: there may be a point into the above madness.
      After all, we humans are sacks of chemicals [xkcd.com], which is awful indeed.
      My point: don't you dare tell me that smoking kills - I know it already, just let my tobacco alone, will you?)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 17 2015, @04:39AM

        by tathra (3367) on Friday April 17 2015, @04:39AM (#171882)

        My point: don't you dare tell me that smoking kills - I know it already, just let my tobacco alone, will you?

        i don't give a fuck if you use nicotine, so long as you don't use it in a way that forces me to do it too, ie, don't smoke or vape it in my breathing space. drugging somebody against their will is never acceptable.

        at any rate, my point is that if they're going to be all, "Drugs are the devil! Drug users are sub-human scum that should be executed!" they need to apply it to all drugs, or none. it'd be one thing if the drug laws were actually based on safety and scientific studies instead of racism; it'd also be something if drug laws were uniformly enforced [www.leap.cc] instead of selectively enforced almost exclusively against non-whites.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 17 2015, @05:03AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @05:03AM (#171889) Journal
          Got that, my message was tongue-in-cheek anyway (an extrapolation of your comment I was replying to, I hoped with good signal of agreement). My apologies for not being explicit.
          (not to worry, I do take care about others while smoking).
          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford