467
Question: what isn’t swatting a punishable act for the person who called?
Sure, but these folks are masking themselves with spoofed numbers, VPNs, etc.
Then so for an identification or lower the response force. It feels like they just get a random phone call, no proof of anything and they just barge in within 10min. But when my neighbor plays loud music all night no one cares.
When you call the police on your loud neighbor do you say, "their music is too loud" or do you say, "a bunch of suspicious looking people have been going in and out carrying bags of fertilizer and electronic components."
Not sure where she lives other than Maine, might be a small wealthy town with a bored police department.
Why would a swat team be sent for your neighbor's loud music?
Why does your comment have almost 50 upvotes?
I have no idea why so many people upvote this stupid comment.
Yeah, that's what I'm asking.
You really want to try and work out such a system? Tell me how your algorithm is going to work and I'll start throwing exceptions.
Lives are on the line! You better have quite the bulletproof plan.
Since when do cops give a single shit about people's lives?
They have obligation to pretend they do.
All you need is a VPN and a VOIP number. It's not hard to do and you can order them easily online. Let alone text to voice readers.
There's a reason why swatting and bomb threats have been popular for a decade now.
Privacy is a two way street. When it comes to serious threats, the same things that protect you, protect people who would abuse those tools.
That’s my point. It should not be that easy.
Well unless you want FBI back doors built into every VPN in every sovereign nation, then it's unfortunately a byproduct of our need for privacy due to corporate and governmental overreach.
The FBI and other three letter agencies already pay huge bucks for hats when they can. Common encryption aren't going to be broken for at least a couple decades. We almost always encrypt better than decrypt though by the very nature of the process though.
Quantum computing is moving faster than most people realize but it will never beat out better encryption.
Or maybe calls from voip are identified before sending out a swat team
Problem is there's a ton of legitimate VoIP. My brother had a VoIP home phone for years because it costs next to nothing. Police can't just not go to a call because it's a VoIP call.
I’m saying show a little more caution. (I know lol)
They can spoof the phone number so it's a phone number associated the address.
Well, since conservatives are cowards- it’s virtually impossible to catch them because they’ve perfected hiding and/or blaming others for their crimes.
It is. The problems arise when it's an anonymous phone call. The police are still going to show up to a potential hostage situation if the caller spoofs a number.
Arguably, the cops knew the address they were going to was a Secretary of State, but they went there anyway.
Didn't read the article, huh? FAFO with 911, you'll see if it's punishable or not.
More stochastic terrorism. Used to be the political party involved would be tripping over themselves to disavow such actions. Now? 🦗🦗🦗...
Bunch of fucking children, these trumpets.
Not children, terrorists.
*snowflakes
He's the asshole's candidate. We don't need to politely pretend otherwise.
I believe they meant to say fraudulent phone call and not prank phone call.
I'm inclined to believe the local PD knows the addresses of officials.. So they let this happen on purpose.
I doubt it. Not a good look for them.
My guess would be that they took it more seriously since letting something happen to an elected official would be a PR nightmare for them. That, or they knew it could be a hoax but proceeded out of an abundance of caution.
Yes, they probably do have those addresses. Given this woman has received innumerable threats against her life, and the police called her since she was not at home, and she is the one that asked the police to check inside the home, which they then did, what exactly would you suggest happen? That the police ignore a call that indicated violence occurring at the home of a public official that has credible violent threats leveled against her?
They can't just ignore emergency calls because they think it might be a prank.
Well, those people have no arguments, so they have to use SWATing instead.
Five bucks says it is someone who has already gotten some infamy for doing things like this in the past like Jacob Wohl.
You’re on. I say it’s Trump. Or possibly ~~Byron~~ Barron. (edit...lol. we should all just start "who are you again? Duncan?" to trump. probably set his ego off even more than tiny-hands jokes)
Probably some punk named John Barron who I hear many people say has the yugest hands and smells amazing.
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
467 points (98.1% liked)
News
23296 readers
2319 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS