Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.

Anti-Swatting US Congresswoman Targeted in Swatting Attack

posted by martyb on Thursday February 04 2016, @10:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the more-than-just-a-40-year-old-TV-series dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

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."

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Anti-Swatting US Congresswoman Targeted in Swatting Attack | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 53 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, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:47PM (#299000)

    You must be new here. This site, and the green one, are to rights of video gamers and their makers to create/enjoy whatever scenario they please, as the NRA is to the rights of gun owners. That is, they'll see huge potential threats even when they're not there.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Flamebait=1, Informative=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:35PM (#299050)

    It's hilarious that people are so butthurt they credit, sorry "blame", "gamers" for protecting speech online. Keep raging away it doesn't change, by your own admission, that you're an angry minority of people.

    The majority, "gamers" or not, aren't going to let you wreck free speech so cry a little harder.

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:36PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:36PM (#299097) Journal

      Pretty sure placing fake calls to emergency services is not protected speech...