Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

New Jersey Legislator Who Sponsored Anti-Swatting Bill Gets Swatted

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

An Anonymous Coward writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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
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: 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 🏳️‍🌈
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (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