
Swatting Is a Deadly Problem–Here's the Solution - sharkweek
https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-stop-swatting-before-it-happens-seattle/
======
sabertoothed
I am still not sure how that solution makes sense.

(1) In what way would the police change behaviour if you're on that list? Why
don't they behave that way anyways?

(2) How much unwarranted behaviour will now be shown to people who are not on
that list?

(3) What if pretty much everyone ends up on that list in the end?

(4) Should one not spend more energy trying to make sure the callers get
identified & prosecuted for endangering another person?

I am not based in the US. The problem is non-existent here.

~~~
pwinnski
1) GREAT question! Too many people are killed by police because of poor
communication, often because they are disabled or ill in some way.

4) GREAT question!

The problem in the US is ultimately that SWAT teams exist at all.
Militarization of the police is out of control here.

~~~
notus
I don't agree that the existence of SWAT teams is a problem. Other countries
without aggressive police presence also have something comparable for
situations that are out of the norm. It's more the amount of SWAT teams we
have and police being trained to be afraid of everything, for example during
police academy they are played recordings of officers being murdered to
instill this fear. Large cities do still need something like SWAT for
situations beyond the abilities of your average police officer. Some small
town in Kansas definitely does not need a SWAT team because nothing ever
happens there.

~~~
rednixion
Based on my experience of living in Mississippi: rural towns do not have swat
teams(or a police force besides the county sheriff's office and maybe Highway
Patrol if they are nearby), the suburbs also rarely have a swat team however
every local police force or sheriff's office will have some "sharing"
agreement with whatever the closest city is that allows them request swat if a
situation requires it.

As for "nothing happens there" part, domestic violence and it's ability to
turn into a hostage situation is usually why a swat team is used and is sadly
a common issue; dumb bomb threat pranks to get school closed also appears to
be an efficient way to get black trucks to show up in the middle of nowhere.

It's also worth mentioning when comparing US police to other countries that
gun ownership should be a factor. Hard to compare what the appropriate fear
level should be if the number of firearms encountered during day to day stops
differ by magnitudes. Even in rural state like Mississippi that has very
liberal gun carry laws, police still seized at least 4500 guns last year; the
number of guns encountered in homes/cars/concealed carry that didn't warrant
seizure would have a couple of extra zeros if it was tracked.

------
prepend
The simple solution is to have 1/100 the level of swat. Just reforming police
practices would reduce these mess ups where swat shoots someone they
shouldn’t.

This list would only work if everyone was automatically added to it.
Basically, police should handle anonymous tips from burner phones
appropriately. If every person had a note in the registry saying “swat notice
might be false, proceed with caution.” That might help.

------
olliej
Cool, an anti-swatting list.

A better solution IMO needs to also push liability onto companies that provide
phone services but cannot provide the true originator to police.

Then stop charging swatting as anything other than premeditated attempted
murder.

~~~
aeternus
So ban all types of internet-based or IP-based calls? That's an extreme
solution for a limited problem.

The problem is the lack of threat validation by police. There are many options
now to validate threats, we have tech that can see through walls, robotics,
drones. The fact is you have a very real chance of being shot by police
without a trial and based on a phone-call.. and we are considering that a
problem with the phone company?

~~~
olliej
No, require companies that offer IP based calls to take the same steps any
other phone company is required to undertake.

There is no requirement for a company to let anyone make a call without have
some identity confirmation.

Other than that, I agree few (no?) other countries have quite the same level
of murder-by-cop (with or without swatting calls) as the US does. This seems
to be at least in part due to the US police forces having ensuring that police
are _never_ liable for anything, and having got legislation to ensure that
_any_ "fear" of harm to themselves warrants immediate lethal force.

~~~
aeternus
What identity confirmation exists currently for phone companies? You can use a
pay phone, pay cash for a prepaid wireless phone, phone in a motel room booked
under a fake name, etc.

------
traderjane
Wired is essentially calling for a Do-Not-Hit registry where vulnerable
citizens might also declare things like mental disability.

Wired does not even ask if police are too deadly.

~~~
Simulacra
I hear your point, and I think they tried to in the last paragraph “The big
question is: Why does every city in the United States have militarized
police?” I disagree with the tone of that last paragraph - the answer is
myriad and resulting from escalation by everyone.

------
rwz
I don't understand why the police has to react to an anonymous calls the way
they do in the first place.

Is there a legitimate case where you'd need to call in a SWAT team and remain
anonymous at the same time? Seems like if you're legit concerned about the
situation, you should have no problem proving your details that could be
traced back to you. If you wish to remain anonymous, then your call should be
deprioritized and so maybe they send a nearby patrolling officer to
investigate the situation before sending SWAT team.

~~~
flukus
I'd imagine gun control/culture plays a big part in it. Police have a right to
look after their own safety and in a country with so many guns floating around
that means swat teams become necessary.

In countries with no guns and/or better gun control the police don't even need
to be armed with deadly weapons.

~~~
rwz
No, I get the necessity of deployed armed SWAT units every time there's a risk
of gun violence and stuff, I don't understand why an anonymous call warrants
such a response.

I wonder if there's some kind of metrics available breaking down how often an
anonymous calls amount to something real vs abuse of system.

------
AftHurrahWinch
I'm glad they mentioned Ijeoma Oluo's recent swatting. I'm glad that she has
had the wherewithal to discuss what it is like to have your home swatted when
you're on a plane and teenage son is at home alone... and I'm especially glad
for the King County Sheriff's pffice which has the professionalism to work
with her on this.

[https://twitter.com/IjeomaOluo/status/1162454404043141120](https://twitter.com/IjeomaOluo/status/1162454404043141120)

------
tareqak
A lot of Twitch streamers would benefit from this list. A good number of them
maintain relationships with their local police or FBI departments for this
reason.

------
ErikAugust
Here's an idea: You SWAT? Go to prison for 10 years. I bet that discourages
most people.

~~~
rwz
I think this is already very much prosecutable. The problem is that these
calls are always anonymous and it's hard (often impossible) to track the
perpetrator.

