←back to thread

Teen behind hundreds of swatting attacks pleads guilty to federal charges

(www.wired.com)
242 points LinuxBender | 5 comments | 18 Nov 24 00:39 UTC | HN request time: 1.301s | source
Show context
BLKNSLVR ◴[18 Nov 24 01:50 UTC] No.42169029[source]▶
I'm unwisely and unadvisedly wading into this half-cocked.

Swatting wouldn't even be a thing if <any number of logical things>

- Anonymous calls should be treated with high levels of suspicion as to their legitimacy

- First response training that's even moderately appropriate

- Situational awareness beyond what one's been informed by third parties

- Empathy for all humans

- Any kind of notion of that a scenario may not actually be as described by a single anonymous voice

A very (un)funny irony is that there are numerous stories I've read about domestic violence victims being arrested, as opposed to the attacker, which implies there's some level of suspicion in some circumstances about the information the police are being fed. Swatting, as a thing, indicates there's some kind of hero-pressure build-up that overrules any kind of <all the things I listed above> whereby that pressure has the possibility of impending release.

replies(5): >>42169059 #>>42169065 #>>42169237 #>>42169267 #>>42172756 #
blindriver ◴[18 Nov 24 01:57 UTC] No.42169059[source]▶
No, because if every call isn’t treated like a real emergency, in the off chance that one of them actually is an emergency then everyone would be crucified by the media and lawyers. Look at all the school shootings as an example, or even the Trump assassination attempt.
replies(5): >>42169067 #>>42169108 #>>42169161 #>>42169253 #>>42174005 #
sixothree ◴[18 Nov 24 02:21 UTC] No.42169161[source]▶
If it’s real you don’t need to be anonymous.
replies(1): >>42169222 #
llamaimperative ◴[18 Nov 24 02:31 UTC] No.42169222[source]▶
Fear of retribution/not wanting to get involved is a real thing. Also are you proposing that 911 operators confirm people's real identities before accepting their call and dispatching someone?
replies(1): >>42170187 #
1. BLKNSLVR ◴[18 Nov 24 06:18 UTC] No.42170187[source]▶
No, but at least have the calling number presented to the 911 operator, with various options categorised as more or less trustworthy. And 911 calls should bypass any 'calling number protection'.

Someone else pointed out that the whole phone system is a dog's breakfast, which also needs to be fixed for various easy-scam-exploitation reasons as well. The only reason not to do it is that the corps that run the networks don't want to have to pay to make their shit fit for society's purpose rather than their own.

replies(1): >>42172588 #
2. llamaimperative ◴[18 Nov 24 14:34 UTC] No.42172588[source]▶
What specific effect would you expect “categorize as less trustworthy” have?

Agreed on telephone infra in general

replies(1): >>42176994 #
3. BLKNSLVR ◴[18 Nov 24 21:02 UTC] No.42176994[source]▶
Non-spoofable and local number: trustworthy

Spoofable local number: slightly less trustworthy

Non-local number: less trustworthy

International number: barely trustworthy

VoIP: maybe slightly more trustworthy than international.

Said infra probably limits the ability to distinguish between these, however, so that becomes the primary issue.

replies(1): >>42178251 #
4. llamaimperative ◴[18 Nov 24 23:18 UTC] No.42178251{3}[source]▶
I wasn't clear: what does that change?

Do you tell emergency responders not to turn their lights on en route? To put it at the bottom of the queue after helping the old lady cross the street? To politely knock on the alleged hostage-taker's door instead of kicking it in?

replies(1): >>42200137 #
5. BLKNSLVR ◴[21 Nov 24 01:34 UTC] No.42200137{4}[source]▶
Yes, change the response appropriately.

And if "kick the door in" is Standard Operating Procedure, then change the SOP, or have some more conditionals prior to "kick the door in".