
Police to Seattle’s techies, streamers: Sign up for our anti-swatting service - tonyztan
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/10/police-to-seattles-techies-streamers-sign-up-for-our-anti-swatting-service/
======
Reelin
So... why don't we fix the problem at its source by trying to better assess
the reliability of a lone phone call before barging in guns blazing as though
it was a war zone?

Before: "We got a single phone call guys, this is bulletproof. No need to
actually assess the situation or anything, no one would ever lie to us - we're
the authorities after all."

Now: "Not in the database - looks like we're good to shoot on sight!"

Obviously I exaggerate, and hopefully things don't usually proceed the way
they did in Kansas ([https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/us/gamers-swatting-
charge...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/us/gamers-swatting-
charges.html)). But I really have to wonder about the reasoning here. In all
seriousness, which of the below is a more frequent occurrence?

* A hostage (or similar) situation deserving of this sort of response, but with no externally visible indications - just a single phone call.

* "Prank" calls of this sort.

I don't actually know the answer, but I strongly suspect the latter by a very
large margin.

~~~
a_t48
This has to be balanced by the need for fast responses when there is an actual
real emergency. Heads will roll if the authorities come slowly or not at all
for a real hostage situation.

~~~
vosper
I don't think the best outcomes for hostage situations are quick responses by
heavily armed assault teams? I'm pretty sure the playbook is something like
surrounding and controlling the area, establishing communications, and trying
to work out a peaceful outcome. Whilst planning for an alternative option.

~~~
mrhappyunhappy
I am pretty sure thing are the way they are for a good reason that you and I
have no insight to. Otherwise they wouldn’t be this way. Cops are not stupid
and neither are the people running those teams. I doubt it gives them any
pleasure responding to potentially deadly situations and putting their own
lives at risk. Cops have families too. Perhaps we need to ask someone who
knows better instead of speculating.

~~~
samontar
Turns out some times the authorities are morons, dude. Once upon a time we
dumped radioactive material off the coast of SF and shot holes in the barrels
to make them sink. I’m sure there was someone running around saying “there’s
probably a good reason”. That dude would have been wrong.

~~~
mrhappyunhappy
I wouldn’t disagree with your first statement but HN tends to skew to a bunch
of I’m a know it all attitudes. I’m just saying, things are not always as
simple as they appear and while you can have an opinion on the matter does not
make you authority on the subject. I forget the term for this concept but the
news is always wrong depending on who is reading it.

~~~
iamnothere
You're referring to the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-
Mann_amnesia_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect)

------
scarface74
Can I use it for - My Family is Black in a mostly White neighborhood, if a
neighbor calls the police about “suspicious” people entering my house, it’s
probably just my family.

~~~
rsj_hn
I am sorry to hear that. Is your neighborhood wealthy? I'm in SF, and there
are some neighborhoods (Pacific Heights) where your risk of getting the cops
called at you is pretty high just by walking around at night if one of the
nosy neighbors doesn't recognize you. I assume being black would increase
those odds.

I was almost swatted once -- there was a knock on my door "Police! Open up!"
and when I came to the door the police said they heard reports of gunshots
from my apartment. What?? I let them in, they looked around -- I think it was
an ex-gf but I can't prove it. They started asking me if I just moved in (I
had a few months before). I tried to ask them who reported it, but they
wouldn't say. I'm just glad they didn't bust down the door guns blazing.

It's a scary world out there.

~~~
jedberg
> I'm in SF, and there are some neighborhoods (Pacific Heights) where your
> risk of getting the cops called at you is pretty high just by walking around
> at night if one of the nosy neighbors doesn't recognize you. I assume being
> black would increase those odds.

If you really want to see blatant racism, sign up for nextdoor.com. My
Cupertino neighbors are constantly posting about a "suspicious person", and
when you press them as to why the person is suspicious, it always boils down
to, "because they're black". Usually they don't outright say it, they just
imply it, but sometimes they do say it outright.

~~~
shady-lady
[not american] i've always wondered about that. is it they feel uncomfortable
because the person is wearing something normally associated with
gangbanger/dodgy person.

would it happen if the person was dressed like whatever the stereotypical
white person business casual attire is for the area?

i just can't see somebody being uncomfortable __just__ on color of skin. there
surely has to be something else which triggers it.

person acting sketchy (maybe because they feel out of place rather than being
up to dodgy activity?

~~~
rsj_hn
I think dress is one factor. Age, height, are they in a group, and if so, what
do the other members of the group look like -- they all have an effect. But, I
don't think you can deny that race is a factor also, independent of all the
other factors. I don't think that's ever gonna change, either.

I don't believe people outside the U.S. are immune from considering race as a
factor in judging whether someone is a threat or out for mischief. The world
is filled with race wars and racial conflict and tension. For a German, say,
it might not be a black person, but it could be a gypsy or arab that elevates
their sense of risk.

------
partiallypro
How about police just not use SWAT teams so much? It's ridiculous that you can
get someone "swatted" with mere heresay; but SWAT teams have swelled in number
and are now being used for far more than what they were originally intended.
SWAT teams raiding the wrong homes, shooting family dogs, killing innocent
people, etc...are all a symptom of a larger problem, as is this. You shouldn't
have to sign up for anything to not get attacked by a SWAT team, how
absolutely absurd. A list does not solve the deeper issue.

~~~
gingerbread-man
Former cop here: I think the biggest misconception about SWAT teams is that
what makes them different is that they carry rifles instead of handguns. (In
fact, in most departments every officer carries a rifle in his/her patrol
car.)

A SWAT team is a group of officers who train as a team for high-risk
situations like drug warrants and, yes, hostage situations. By contrast, most
other officers are trained to respond solo or in pairs, and often don't spend
nearly as much time practicing things like room clearance. If the police are
going to break down your door, you want the best-trained most experienced
officers doing it. The SWAT guys are calmer, more professional, and less
likely to pull the trigger when startled.

~~~
arminiusreturns
You are both wrong and missing the point, which is; they shouldn't be breaking
down doors in the first place based off the shoddy info given, full fucking
stop.

See the professionalism of this Arizona SWAT for an example
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l4LzwZV6hFQ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l4LzwZV6hFQ)

I'm a former Marine who was trained in advanced CQB/CQC and have crosstrained
all kinds of LEAs/LEOs and SWAT tends to be the very worst trained,
undisciplined bunch of wannabe's this side of the equator. It actually became
a joke in the shoot house how many former POGs who never saw combat and were
naively gung-ho gear-queers made up the majority of the SWATs coming through.
We had more trigger discipline in a fucking combat zone than these guys.

tldr; quit your bullshit

~~~
hef19898
Could be an inherent risk of militarizing a police force. You have the gear to
look the like, and gear wants to be used. Add people attracted more by the
gear and not the task at hand to superiors wanting to use the gear and it can
get ugly.

When your only tool is hammer eyery problem tunrs into a nail, right?

EDIT: When German police was on alert two years ago after some incidents they
did send 20-something guys with SMGs to guard and patrol in trains. Usually I
choose a car they already passed for my communte, somehow I didn't have a lot
of confidence in how they would react if there really was a situation that
warrented police. Normally in Germany police is all about deescalation, but
they don't carry automatic most of the time neither.

------
artellectual
How is this different from paying the mafia protection money? This is what
mafias do they extort businesses for money to not be bothered by them and
other gang members.

------
bpanon
The "Please don't shoot" list

------
hyperrail
Some more discussion, including sign-up instructions at the end:
[https://www.geekwire.com/2018/seattle-police-try-new-
tactic-...](https://www.geekwire.com/2018/seattle-police-try-new-tactic-give-
game-streamers-others-defense-swatting-pranks/)

~~~
samontar
Inb4 someone registers before actually shooting a family. Doesn’t look like
any proof is required.

------
King-Aaron
Sooooo can you set up a meth lab, then add yourself to the list?

~~~
user111233
It literally says in the article that they will not ignore calls to locations
on the list and they will only keep the information in mind when responding.

~~~
King-Aaron
Aware of that, however I don't see how it can work in any situation to be
honest.

A ) I have an illegal thing in my house, but I register for "please dont shoot
me etc". Party B calls the police, door is still likely to be kicked in.

B ) I don't have an illegal thing in my house, I register for "please dont
shoot me etc". Party B calls the police, door is still likely to be kicked in.

And at what point does it become meaningless if the majority of residential
addresses are on the list?

------
Tyrannosaur
What a racket. There is a problem with people spoofing voip phone calls
calling in hoaxes and the best they can come up with to fix it is "oh pay for
this protection service and we will send a normal police response instead of a
murderous one."

WHAT?? Why not "oh this phone call has weird information and is untrackable.
That's weird and abnormal, almost like this is a hoax. Let's go check assuming
it is a hoax."

------
United857
One idea might be to have some way to register a 'code word' with the
police/911 dispatch for a given address/phone in advance. If the code word is
spoken, that gives extra signal that it's a genuine threat.

In practice, not sure if the IT of most departments is sophisticated enough,
but in theory that might help.

~~~
meritt
People are extremely unlikely to remember a code word they setup years ago and
now must recall during a high-stress emergency.

------
BslSJDIz1gqWxXq
Streamers like Ice Poseidon and Sam Pepper could benefit from such a service,
though unfortunately they aren't based in Seattle.

------
SrslyJosh
Feels like a trap.

------
newsDerp
Holy shit. We're fucking doomed.

The SWAT team just can't promise that it won't treat every phone call like a
life and death situation.

Gee. Maybe the SWAT team should only barge in after regular cops are confirmed
to have made contact with a genuine emergency, that has been validated and
confirmed as unresolvable by other means?

What if the SWAT team just didn't react to phone calls?

What if other criteria were required to be met, before dumping a pile of
battering rams and automatic weapons and snipers and helicopters onto a
problem?

Maybe just expose regular police to emergency calls first? Maybe it's not Die
Hard? Maybe Hans Gruber isn't taking hostages? Imagine that.

------
edoceo
I'm moving back to Oakland

~~~
edoceo
Downvoted? Because SPD scares me more than OPD?

