3 ms·

It already is considered attempted murder by some localities. The issue is usually catching the swatter. They often use anonymous VOIP services and voice chan

It already is considered attempted murder by some localities. The issue is usually catching the swatter. They often use anonymous VOIP services and voice changers (if they are even in the same country as the target), so it is effectively impossible to track them down.

teeray 4y ago
The question is: why is it possible to place a 911 call without all that information being laid bare before the dispatcher and logged. There are extraordinary regulations on carriers for E911, and thus a means to impose that requirement.
- sowbug 4y ago
  I'm hearing "let's block or delay 911 calls for [a reason]." Not sure that'll get a lot of traction. It's an awful problem that will exist as long as people suck.
  - acdha 4y ago
    This is a problem created and continued by phone companies. It wasn’t a huge problem before VoIP because the phone company networks didn’t allow everyone to forge sender info (SS7, not CallerID). When VoIP came along they didn’t put strict authentication in because it would have cost more, and that really opened things up. Right now, you could have extra caution for 911 calls which originate from VoIP. Pass a law that in five years telco CEOs are charged as assisting murder the next time a SWATing happens and they’d magically discover that egress filtering is easy to implement once you’re not looking at the revenue generated by spammers.
    - Bud 4y ago
      Sounds easy, but I think you'll find that in practice, it's not so easy to just toss around murder (or accessory to murder) charges because something annoys you. Even if it annoys you a lot. It's a slippery slope from that to making basically anything a "murder" charge. Not saying you can't pass some sort of law or create some sort of penalty, but murder-related charges aren't going to fly.
      - phendrenad2 4y ago
        Slippery-slope fallacies are bad to use, it's a slippery-slope to literally anything being called a "slippery-slope" to literally anything else. Eating beans causes more vandalism? Slippery slope! Poodles with weird haircuts cause global warming? Slippery-slope!
      - acdha 4y ago
        First, it’s a thought exercise - people are talking like this some unavoidable fact of nature when it’s largely unique to the United States where we have the combination of heavily armed cops with poor trigger discipline and a phone system which is increasingly useless because the companies were allowed to prioritize revenue over security. Second, you can argue anything will be a slippery slope (you should hear what people say raising the capital gains rate 1% will do) but it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend there’s no distinction between contributing to a violence death and “basically anything”. Operating critical safety infrastructure should carry responsibilities beyond the average business.
- wpietri 4y ago
  Because the system has to fail safe. If there's a network glitch or somebody is using a bottom-tier pay-as-you-go mobile or a cheap-ass VOIP phone, they still need to be able to call for an ambulance, a fire truck, or the police.
tmpburning 4y ago
> They often use anonymous VOIP services and voice changers using a voice changer is asking for trouble... I would use synthesized speech
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> It already is considered attempted murder by some localities Is there a link to this? The government decided that calling another branch of the government for help is so dangerous it is an attempt to murder?
- ummonk 4y ago
  It’s calling a branch of the government and describing a situation involving imminent or ongoing violence which the government is expected (though not legally obligated) to respond to.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    BY making it worse? It's one thing that it happens, but the fact that it is being normalised is what's truly repugnant. 'Swatting' someone in Britain does not cause any deaths.

teeray 4y ago

The question is: why is it possible to place a 911 call without all that information being laid bare before the dispatcher and logged. There are extraordinary regulations on carriers for E911, and thus a means to impose that requirement.

sowbug 4y ago
I'm hearing "let's block or delay 911 calls for [a reason]." Not sure that'll get a lot of traction. It's an awful problem that will exist as long as people suck.
- acdha 4y ago
  This is a problem created and continued by phone companies. It wasn’t a huge problem before VoIP because the phone company networks didn’t allow everyone to forge sender info (SS7, not CallerID). When VoIP came along they didn’t put strict authentication in because it would have cost more, and that really opened things up. Right now, you could have extra caution for 911 calls which originate from VoIP. Pass a law that in five years telco CEOs are charged as assisting murder the next time a SWATing happens and they’d magically discover that egress filtering is easy to implement once you’re not looking at the revenue generated by spammers.
  - Bud 4y ago
    Sounds easy, but I think you'll find that in practice, it's not so easy to just toss around murder (or accessory to murder) charges because something annoys you. Even if it annoys you a lot. It's a slippery slope from that to making basically anything a "murder" charge. Not saying you can't pass some sort of law or create some sort of penalty, but murder-related charges aren't going to fly.
    - phendrenad2 4y ago
      Slippery-slope fallacies are bad to use, it's a slippery-slope to literally anything being called a "slippery-slope" to literally anything else. Eating beans causes more vandalism? Slippery slope! Poodles with weird haircuts cause global warming? Slippery-slope!
    - acdha 4y ago
      First, it’s a thought exercise - people are talking like this some unavoidable fact of nature when it’s largely unique to the United States where we have the combination of heavily armed cops with poor trigger discipline and a phone system which is increasingly useless because the companies were allowed to prioritize revenue over security. Second, you can argue anything will be a slippery slope (you should hear what people say raising the capital gains rate 1% will do) but it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend there’s no distinction between contributing to a violence death and “basically anything”. Operating critical safety infrastructure should carry responsibilities beyond the average business.
wpietri 4y ago
Because the system has to fail safe. If there's a network glitch or somebody is using a bottom-tier pay-as-you-go mobile or a cheap-ass VOIP phone, they still need to be able to call for an ambulance, a fire truck, or the police.

tmpburning 4y ago

> They often use anonymous VOIP services and voice changers using a voice changer is asking for trouble... I would use synthesized speech

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> It already is considered attempted murder by some localities Is there a link to this? The government decided that calling another branch of the government for help is so dangerous it is an attempt to murder?

ummonk 4y ago
It’s calling a branch of the government and describing a situation involving imminent or ongoing violence which the government is expected (though not legally obligated) to respond to.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  BY making it worse? It's one thing that it happens, but the fact that it is being normalised is what's truly repugnant. 'Swatting' someone in Britain does not cause any deaths.