SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the more-than-just-a-40-year-old-TV-series dept.
Three months after she introduced the Internet Swatting Hoax Act in US Congress, Representative Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) found herself at the end of an apparent swatting attempt on Sunday night.
Melrose, Massachusetts police press spokesperson John Guilfoil confirmed to Ars Technica that the department received a phone call from "a computerized voice, not a natural voice" alleging "shots fired" and an "active shooter" at the address of Clark's home. The resulting police report confirmed an incident time of 9:57pm for a "life alert alarm" and "automated call reporting shooter."
This type of police report—using a disguised voice to allege false threats at a residence—is known as "swatting," due to the likelihood that police departments will react by sending SWAT teams to respond to serious-sounding threats. In the case of the Sunday night call, however, Guilfoil confirmed that Melrose police followed "established protocols" to choose a de-escalated response of normal police officers, though the officers in question blocked traffic on both ends of Clark's street with patrol cars. Guilfoil was unable to clarify whether weapons were drawn at the scene, and he did not answer our other questions about the incident, particularly those about the nature of the phone call received, "due to the ongoing nature of the investigation."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:00PM
You don't have to get behind new anti-SWATing laws, it's already illegal and there's a number of additional charges that can be tacked on. I've read somewhere it could be argued it's attempted murder given how wrong things can go when a bunch of men with assault rifles kick in your door at 3:00 AM.
I agree with you on the sexism thing. "Think of the women" is the new "Think of the children". When someone tacks "of women", on to anything, as in "protection from online harassment ... of women", you can pretty well guarantee the intention is not to "protect women". It's unnecessary and only there to elicit an emotional response. Any "protection" being offered should be afforded to everyone not just people of a specific sex, gender or race. So when I see them creating laws to offer advantages to specific parties I know the intent is to provide a cover that they can attack any opposition with. Now if opponents disagree, or even agree but just point out issues, they must be misogynists.
I think people have caught on to this though and are starting to push back against it.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:23PM
You don't have to get behind new anti-SWATing laws, it's already illegal and there's a number of additional charges that can be tacked on.
Yeah, we should totally oppose all those sweeping new powers she is proposing.
That’s why I have asked my colleagues in Congress to join me in calling on the Department of Justice to intensify their efforts to investigate and prosecute the federal laws that criminalize the worst of this behavior. The federal government is not responsible for policing the Internet, but it is responsible for protecting the women who are being threatened with rape and murder in violation of existing federal law.
Oh wait...
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:50PM
I'll see you're quote with the Interstate Swatting Hoax Act [google.com] from Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:03PM
Clearly we were talking about Kurenai's The Hill article. But yes, there is a new bill on the table.
Using your handy link, show me where in that bill a specific sex, gender or race is even mentioned. Let alone being a requirement for hoax calls to emergency services to be punishable.
Since you claim to ... see them creating laws to offer advantages to specific parties....It should be easy to find the relevant quote, right?