Seattle Police Department Is Offering An Anti-Swatting Service (arstechnica.com) 106
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The practice of "swatting," or calling in fake threats to activate an aggressive police response to an unwitting home or business, has unfortunately lingered for the past few years. Starting this week, one police department in the United States is rolling out a system targeted directly at this illegal hoax practice. On its official "swatting" resource site, the Seattle Police Department acknowledges how swatting works, along with the fact that citizens have requested a way to submit their own concerns or worries about being a potential victim. "To our knowledge, no solution to this problem existed, so we engineered one," SPD's site reads. The site claims that swatting victims are "typically associated with the tech industry, video game industry, and/or the online broadcasting community."
SPD's process asks citizens to create a profile on a third-party data-management service called Rave Facility (run by the company Smart911). Though this service is advertised for public locations and businesses, it supports private residences as well, and SPD offers steps to input data and add a "swatting concerns" tab to your profile. With that information in hand, SPD says that any police or 911 operator who receives a particularly troubling emergency report and matches it to a location that has already been flagged with a "swatting concerns" notice, will share that information "with first responders to inform and improve their police response to the incident." The report notes that "all calls" will still receive standard police response, whether or not any swatting concerns are filed. "Nothing about this solution is designed to minimize or slow emergency services," the site reads. "At the same time, if information is available, it is more useful for responding officers to have it than to not."
SPD's process asks citizens to create a profile on a third-party data-management service called Rave Facility (run by the company Smart911). Though this service is advertised for public locations and businesses, it supports private residences as well, and SPD offers steps to input data and add a "swatting concerns" tab to your profile. With that information in hand, SPD says that any police or 911 operator who receives a particularly troubling emergency report and matches it to a location that has already been flagged with a "swatting concerns" notice, will share that information "with first responders to inform and improve their police response to the incident." The report notes that "all calls" will still receive standard police response, whether or not any swatting concerns are filed. "Nothing about this solution is designed to minimize or slow emergency services," the site reads. "At the same time, if information is available, it is more useful for responding officers to have it than to not."
Great, this is kinda like opt out death by police (Score:4, Interesting)
Not sure why we have to opt out, but at least it's better than being dead. I think it might help if cops lived in the real world and took a step back once in a while and realize we are not Iraq.
Re: (Score:1)
Swatting doesn't happen because the police bring WMDs for a drug arrest.
It happens because evil people lie and say that something that justifies a huge response is really going on.
Re:Great, this is kinda like opt out death by poli (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the MO of police in the USA, I seriously doubt that this anti swatting database is going to make any difference.
Re: Great, this is kinda like opt out death by pol (Score:1)
Uhhh... Many Americans are armed better than the random insurgent with just one gun...
I can't blame the American police force for going overboard occasionally.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh Fritz, Fritz, Fritz... just because Americans (outside our major cities) still hold the full rights of citizenship... doesn't mean we're all armed to the teeth like Rambo. You really need to get out of your Hollywood movie fantasy world. Maybe, you know, travel a little...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"something that justifies a huge response is really going on"
It's probably not. Cordon off the block and negotiate. There's almost never a reason to burst into a house in a city with military level force... except that it gives the cops doing it boners.
SWAT is fucking bullshit. Serve warrants. Make arrests. You don't need to throw grenades. It's retarded.
Let's walk through that. Already shot in the head (Score:2)
Let's walk through your "cordone off the block suggestion" and you tell me what you think the cops should exactly. I'm not sure there is such an easy solution that is appropriate both if the call is true and if it's completely false. Which isn't to excuse officers who screwed up; I just don't see a simple, easy solution that actually makes sense. Randomly choosing the Barriss example, they get a 911 call saying:
--
he shot his father in the head, his father wasn't breathing, he was holding his mother
Re: (Score:1)
Oooo Oooo Oooo! I know this one!
You bust the door down, guns blazing, dropping ANYBODY that moves, including pets. You continue to clear the house until the environment is fully controlled. Then you ascertain the situation. This is also known as "shoot first, ask questions later", but that is over-simplified. God will sort them out, just GIT ER DUN!
Re: (Score:2)
It's simple. Anyone who calls in swatting gets 30 years in prison. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We could compare the frequency of the events. If false reports are much more frequent than a TV-plot psycho, police should respond more cautiously even though it will occasionally prevent them from being TV-plot heros who save everybody from the psycho.
Interesting thought. Two infrequent events (Score:2)
That's a very interesting thought. I would suspect that swatting of this nature AND true calls that sound similar to swatting are both pretty infrequent. It might indeed be very useful to know the comparative frequency. That would give us the a priori probably that a given call is indeed factual.
I third category would be a crazy person claiming hostages that don't exist or otherwise misrepresenting a scenario that actually is dangerous, such as in a suicide by cop situation.
Well, that's intellectually honest (Score:2)
Thanks for that.
It has been said that when those who have a duty to act fail to do so, they have done harm through inaction.
An officer was convicted when he saw a mean being beaten outside a nightclub and failed to take appropriate action to stop it.
Five officers were convicted of manslaughter after they arrested a man who was being violent toward hospital staff. He was in the hospital to be treated for a head injury. Without proper treatment, he died.
Re: (Score:2)
Swatting doesn't happen because the police bring WMDs for a drug arrest.
It happens because evil people lie and say that something that justifies a huge response is really going on.
Does it happen because law enforcement's rules of engagement encourage killing an unarmed and nonthreatening man in his doorway? And what prompted those rule of engagement? Was it the drug war?
Re: (Score:2)
Opting out (Score:2)
When you squint at it,
"announcing that you're currently at the receiving end of a cyber bullying campaign (basically, you happen to be notorious on the web. that's usually enough to attract idiots) and thus would like the police to think twice before sending full military-level force on the slightest phone call" (that's how I understand as "swatting concerns")
is basically "opt-ing out".
It's being added to a "think twice before sending the tank" list.
Now "What the hell is wrong in your country to the point t
Re: (Score:2)
And the answer is...
Once upon a time, a PD had some money left over as they approached the end of a fiscal year. Knowing, as they did, that leftover money would mean a budget cut next year, they went looking for something to spend it on. And they found some nice, expensive, new armoured car. So they bought it.
A bit later, there
Re: (Score:2)
Military trained officers actually are less trigger happy and less panicky because they know how to deal with situations minute by minute, and aren't thinking that some idiot with a knife is going to be able to kill them: https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You would never know if from the hype Law Enforcement put out, but they aren't even in the top ten most dangerous occupations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality#/media/File:Selected_occupations_with_high_fatality_rate.png
Yeah, (Score:1)
Do Not Swat (Score:2)
It's an interesting idea but it would be much more effective if getting swatted were opt-in rather than opt-out.
What's next, getting-hit-on-the-head lessons [youtu.be]?
Re: (Score:2)
Until an abusive spouse puts the house on the "do not react" list, and the next times things get physical...
Re: (Score:2)
Great username. You didn't even read the summary.
The report notes that "all calls" will still receive standard police response, whether or not any swatting concerns are filed. "Nothing about this solution is designed to minimize or slow emergency services," the site reads. "At the same time, if information is available, it is more useful for responding officers to have it than to not."
Re: (Score:2)
Great username. You didn't even read the summary.
The report notes that "all calls" will still receive standard police response, whether or not any swatting concerns are filed. "Nothing about this solution is designed to minimize or slow emergency services," the site reads. "At the same time, if information is available, it is more useful for responding officers to have it than to not."
How about the police just consider being more measured in their response everywhere instead of sending a paramilitary force into citizens' homes with guns drawn. We shouldn't have to opt out of getting shot in our own home by a guy with a shield and a ski mask.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Heres a novel idea: (Score:4, Interesting)
How about SPD assume that everyone is worried about SWATTING and behave accordingly.
Wrong answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Or the police could actually respond with someone who actually, I don't know, investigates the report *before* sending in a paramilitary force? I mean, it seems like getting some Mark I eyeballs on a scene first would prevent pretty much every case of SWATing. That doesn't mean that the SWAT people don't go out to the location. Only that they do not deploy as the *first* option before there are any eyeballs on the scene.
Re:Wrong answer (Score:5, Insightful)
This does raise a question, how often does a 911 call actually justify a response by SWAT?
If a police department wants to keep their SWAT team, and keep getting all the cool mil-spec equipment, then they need to use it as often as possible. Otherwise, their budget will get cut.
Re: (Score:3)
One obvious solution is to embed a trained observer with each SWAT team, and make the policy that they take a look at the situation before the safeties come off. That way you still get to deploy the team, but there is at least a procedure in place which if followed can reduce SWATting incidents.
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't mean that the SWAT people don't go out to the location. Only that they do not deploy as the *first* option before there are any eyeballs on the scene.
What and have them give up an opportunity to play soldier? Good luck with that! -_-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with your idea is that by the time someone has seen what's going on and decided that the guys with the big guns are in fact needed, the bad guys inside might have a chance to escape via their secret escape tunnel or be ready to defend themselves with some help from Mr Smith and Mr Wesson. (or something bigger than that)
Catching the criminals by surprise may be the only way to prevent an escape, an attack on law enforcement or destruction of evidence.
Re: (Score:1)
seriously? "escape tunnel"
I'm guessing that about .00001% of criminals has one of those.
As for S&W-- barricade and negotiate.
How About SWAT Liability? (Score:5, Informative)
The report notes that "all calls" will still receive standard police response, whether or not any swatting concerns are filed.
So they'll still break down the wrong door, flashbang your baby, and charge you with assault/murder if you try and defend yourself from the shouting armed intruders.
This also does nothing if the swatters get the address of their target wrong. That said, it's a tiny step forward, that the Seattle PD is even acknowledging swatting might be a problem.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
AND those stupid enough to live in a place where someone stupid enough to put his real information online used to live.
AND those stupid enough to live in a place that someone SMART enough NOT to put his real information online might use instead if asked.
Re: (Score:3)
Except in the SWAT'ing cases where someone died, the person had no idea they were going to get SWAT'ed, because the person who had a reason to be targeted gave someone else's info in provoking the future felon. https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03... [cnn.com]
There is some serious loss of common sense in Seattle Police Department (or any police department) thinking something like this: (1) won't get abused, and (2) will actually save lives.
Better idea: make this the default (Score:2)
The extra checks for the "swatting concerns" flag should be the default checks the cops do before responding. For a medical emergency for instance there's no need for an armed response. If there's a threat of violence the one thing you don't want to do right off is an armed, forced entry, you start by doing recon on the target to figure out what's currently going on before deciding on tactics which if it's a false call will give plenty of opportunity to establish that there's no current apparent threat of v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then there's going to be gunshots going off which will tell the recon people that this isn't a false alarm, no? Shouldn't take long to assess that situation and tell the SWAT guys it's a go. On the other hand if you receive a call like t
Do not shoot list (Score:3)
I do wonder if this Do Not Shoot list will be as effective as a Do Not Call list. I mean they could try not running in guns akimbo in the first place, but apparently this American specific problem has no solution.
Untrusted database open to manipulation (Score:2)
The problem with this solution is that he "swatting concern" database is open for anyone to edit, therefore a completely untrusted source of information. Is it really better for the responders to have such untrusted information which anyone can manipulate? What exactly will they do differently when responding to an address in the database? If nothing, then why bother them with the information?
If this was a secured database where only trusted sources can access it, for example police knowing a residence has
Would this work? (Score:1)
Imagine a modified Apple Watch that, once unlocked (with one of two passcodes) and if not removed from the body since unlocking, could be sent a signal and then heat up (only against the skin) or be sent a signal to trigger small electric shock that only the wearer could feel.
Use Case:
-Police receive hostage call from âoestreamerâ
-Police begin response, but also send a shock to the Apple Watch
-If criminal scum are in the streamerâ(TM)s house, they wonâ(TM)t know of the shock nor have any
Rave is not Smart911 (Score:2)
Just want to point out that I work for Rave Mobile Safety and Smart911 is a product, not the name of the company.
Hmm (Score:2)
Do I have to renew it every few years, like the Do Not Call list?
And do the swatters get access to the list, like the Do Not Call list?
Should be the default, not 3rd-party enabled (Score:3)
...share that information "with first responders to inform and improve their police response to the incident."
Shouldn't such improvements in response be the norm, not the outlier?
After this is abused (Score:1)
The press release will claim that nobody could have predicted that the system would be abused by criminals, registering as their intended victims, to plant trigger words in order to cause our brave first responders to overreact.
It's blatantly obvious. This does nothing to fix the underlying problems.
Likely wouldn't have saved Andrew Finch (Score:2)
I appreciate that the Seattle PD is trying to do *something* to fix this problem, but their solution would likely not have saved the life of swatting victim Andrew Finch. Finch was murdered by Officer Justin Rapp who will face no consequences for his actions. The idiot who made the swatting call has at least been charged, but the trigger man got a pass.
Finch wasn't a gamer and had no reason to believe he was at risk for swatting. He died because he twitched the wrong way when he was startled at the front
It's an "attack" not an "illegal hoax practice" (Score:2)
We need to use stronger language here. Some perpetrators of swatting do not understand the gravity, the fact that people die in some of these incidents.
This isn't a "hoax". This is a potentially fatal attack by proxy.
I applaud the Seattle police for trying to be proactive on this. This service will save lives.
Perhaps I am confused... (Score:2)
Let me make sure I understand. If I register in this database then the police will actually check to see if I'm a danger to myself or others before shooting me?
America, we have a problem.
for $150 we offer fire order now & get rape $5 (Score:2)
for $150 we offer fire order now & get rape response $50/year
How About... (Score:3, Insightful)
Twenty year minimum for SWATTING.
Complete financial liability for all property damage and injuries.
Complete criminal liability for for all property damage and injuries.
SWATTERS deserve to die in prison.
Re: (Score:3)
Used a burner phone. Catch them if you can.
And how much in financial restitution do you think you're gonna get from someone who lives in their mom's basement and plays Video games for a living?
Re: (Score:2)
Take their mom's house.
Re: (Score:2)
and now we have two victims......
But lets say its some idiot that's not in their mom's basement who has assets and can continue to work, how do they pay damages while serving 20 years in prison?
The problem is that police are entitled where it's all about them, their safety and their goals.
The goal is that everyone is made safe, how are their actions making it safer? Oh sure, safer for them with the surprise, weapons aimed at innocents, destruction of property and risking the lives of those they encounter.
Re: (Score:2)
Minimum mandatory sentences have never helped stop crime. Not once. They have made a lot of money for corporate ran prisons, but that's another topic.
Mandatory minimum sentences for the phone company executives who continue to allow this system insecurity to exist would stop this crime.