SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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This discussion has been archived.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.
New Jersey Legislator Who Sponsored Anti-Swatting Bill Gets Swatted
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 47 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
sillema sillema nika su
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Friday April 17 2015, @12:14AM
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
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
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
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
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