Slashdot Mirror
Man Hacks 911 System, Sends SWAT on Bogus Raid
An anonymous reader writes "The Orange County Register reports that a 19 year old from Washington state broke into the Orange County California 911 emergency system. He randomly selected the name and address of a Lake Forest, California couple and electronically transferred false information into the 911 system. The Orange County California Sheriff's Department's Special Weapons and Tactics Team was immediately sent to the home of a couple with two sleeping toddlers. The SWAT team handcuffed the husband and wife before deciding it was a prank. Says the article, 'Other law enforcement agencies have seen similar breaches into their 911 systems as part of a trend picked up by computer hackers in the nation called "SWATting"'"
some people have way too much time on their hands.
If the guy that was targeted thought someone was breaking in and tried to defend himself, he would probably have been killed... nice prank :(
\u262D = \u5350
"The purpose is to create a false 911 call that appears to be coming from the residence in question and prompt a SWAT response from local law enforcement agencies, Barnes said."
It sounds to me that this was not really a systems penetration type of 'hack', rather the kid forged his Caller ID.
There are WAY too many stupid, unthinking individuals in law enforcement to allow them to act with this kind of force without some direct authorization from someone with at least a LITTLE sense.
We live in a time where fear is threatening *WAY* more people than terrorism ever could.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I totally don't condone the "prankster" jerk's behavior in this incident, or anything similar.
However, I have to say that a silver lining in this sort of incident is that it might help the more zealous members of law enforcement (ever more beefy, ever more armored, ever more anonymous, ever more hair-triggered) remember that there are innocent people out there who don't deserve a knee in the back, a taser in the ass, or a broken door. A citizen who is drunk at a restaurant, or who is loud at a rally does not equate to being dangerous or resisting.
When you assume, it makes an ass of you and me. When a cop assumes, all too often he reaches for his sidearm.
[
It's "hackers" like this who give "hackers" a bad name! Not saying that hacker is the most glorious title to have, but it's douche bags like this one who thinks it funny to hack for this reason that makes serious security people, white and black hat alike, pissed.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Would it be interesting if he sent false information to the police and it actually turned out to be right. Like the biggest drug ring foiled. Anyway it is stupid that of all people the police are hackable. How safe are we really?
Windows on a mac is Windows under Supervision. - Frank Soltis(Chief Scientist/Designer of AS400)
So the SWAT team got hacked LOL
You'll think that until you end up being on the short end of the stick. It's nice to have the police show up and you getting a few round from a MP5 popped into your chest for trying to make heads or tails of the commotion. Don't think it won't happen sooner or later. I know if someone was beating in my door at 3 a.m. the first things I'm reaching for is a flashlight and my H&K 45.
Defacing a webpage is funny. Risking some unknown family's lives over a prank is just idiotic.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I think you should assign them to the home of a federal district judge or a state or federal representative.
Then something would be done about it.
I remember reading stories (here i think) that people have already died because of resisting mistaken police swat teams breaking into their house without warning in the middle of the night.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
``assault with an assault weapon by proxy.''
How the hell do lawmakers dream this shit up?
How about ``assault because of stupid IT personal using insecure Windows Operating Systems to run Critical Emergency Services''
The responsible adult in my thinks this is a terrible, anti-social prank, but the 14-year-old kid in me thinks this is awesome.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Alright so here's the rant:
So do we all feel safer after the establishment of Homeland Security and the billions of dollars spent in upgrading the ease of violating our civil liberties here at home in the name of protecting those same distinctions that make America different? This is another nail in the coffin of fear that we're building for ourselves here in the name of safety. When our most basic methods of crying out for help to our protectors can so easily be broken and used by the tormentors I feel a tremendous sense of loss for what we could have done with the same motivation and money that has been spent on this fear mongering compaign with the almost transparent attempts to simply gain power using the real threats that we face as a shield. America is great because of the people who don't love it or leave it, but protect it and improve it. The swearing in of the presidency is the paramount symbol of this nation, to make an oath to protect America against threats forign and domestic and uphold the constitution. It's not a choice between the two. For without the constitution there would have been no America to protect. At least no America where you would have the rights that allow you to be protected in the first place.
It's sad that the most basic of methods to protect the people is so vulnerable.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
If this kid doesn't get jail time, it's just time to do away with all of our laws. What's the point?
The victimized family should bring a a civil suit and make sure they get a monetary judgement that docks his wages for years to come. If he gets away with it, we'll be hearing about him again.
What the kid did was fake a call from the residence claiming that he had been shot and people were going to kill his sister. If I place a call like that, I WANT the SWAT team to kick in my door, I want 20 heavily armed people coming to save me. I don't want them to say "Well hang on a minute here, let's get the confirmation from the captain, a chief, a judge, and sit on it for day in case it's a hoax." I want them coming over and saving my life.
Yes, had they gone to some other random house, then I'd be with you on needing authorization, however this was, as far as they could tell, an emergency call from the resident in need of immediate help. Given that the emergency call involved drugs, a shooting and a potential hostage situation, this was an appropriate response. When you call for help, that's all the authorization they should need. The failure is in the identification system, not in the response. Had this been a real call, that's the kind of power you want to send, especially if there's a potential hostage situation.
Or maybe if drugs were legal, the guy would have just made up a different crime instead to get the SWAT team to go to the house.
Heh. No. This call is perfectly reasonable even in a society with legal drugs. Otherwise, that's like saying that legalizing alcohol made DUIs and drunken brawls impossible.
People will still get baked on legal drugs, and if taken improperly, they will proceed to have the same violent altercations that they had before. They'll just do it with less involvement from organized crime.
And legalized drugs doesn't mean there still wouldn't be a black market. Guns are legal (in the US), but there is still a thriving black market on weaponry.
Drugs are a problem all by themselves. The problem with the War on Drugs isn't that drugs aren't a problem, its that their way of dealing with it is counterproductive. Even without the WoD, you still have to deal with the fact that many drugs can fuck people up in ways that don't require the involvement of the police or gangs.
They are the real pro's and will NOT shoot you just because you got a knife. That is because unlike regular police they get to train, and train, and train, and train. A regular cop is someone who was given some extremely basic weapons training ages ago, vists a static shooting range every year or so and then in a split second has to go from ordinary average day routine into making a life and death decision.
CAR ANOLOGY! (Didn't think I could do it in this story, well I can)
You are an ordinary driver, you might have one day learned about what to do if you get into a skid, you may even have taken some training, but when you are just driving around and suddenly it all goes wrong and you are expected to suddenly get that 2 tons of metal out of a high speed skid, you probably will NOT do it as the book says.
Unlike a rally driver, to whom this is routine.
IF we want our regular police to be highly capable, and react correctly in an emergency, we better be prepared to pay them for endless training. Are we? No.
Most people understand this, if you got a medical emergency, where do you go, the hospital OR your family doctor? To a building filled with strangers who deal with emergencies ALL the time, or the guy you know and trust but whose last training was 30 years ago?
The swat team did what they are trained to do, lets hope this guys cellmate does what he has been training to do. He is going to get his ports probed.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
They're charging him with assault by proxy. If there had been a death, it could very well be murder depending on the statutes.
Manslaughter is reserved for places where you didn't intend for there to be a death, and it would be hard to argue that you weren't intending someone to die when you send a van full of armed men to their house. The kid is lucky as hell; if someone had died, they'd have charged him with the absolute maximums.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
True, but in a good way. It's a pretty harrowing experience for the innocent victim but at least it was just a prank
'Prank' is a very poor choice of words. A prank does not put innocent people in mortal jeopardy. SWAT teams are trained for high risk arrests and when they make an entry they are a fraction of a second away from firing. If that innocent husband or wife accidentally made a suspicious/threatening move they may have been killed.
Oh, bullshit.
Welcome to the world of emergency response, where seconds matter and people get killed every day.
Sure, there's a lot of fascist crap going on in the US today. Is the government out of control? You betcha.
But in this situation?
A call comes in, saying that one person is dead and another is ABOUT TO BE MURDERED, and the cops respond appropriately - they burst in with guns drawn and in overwhelming force. And, the cops even have the presence of mind to take down the armed homeowner (who, from his perspective, is conducting a lawful self-defence of his home with a knife) with non-lethal force.
I say yay to the cops. They did everything right. For, 99.99% of the time, when the call comes in saying someone is getting murdered, SOMEONE IS GETTING MURDERED. What would you have the cops do? "Hey, there's a report that there's a drug-addled maniac in there who is about to kill a kid. Let's knock at the door and have a chat."
Cops, generally speaking, are trained to not usually knock at doors. They are instructed in many jurisdictions to stand to the SIDE of the door, so that a shotgun blast through the middle of the door won't take them out. That is how they are trained to knock on a door in a NON-CONFRONTATIONAL SITUATION, because cops have been blown away simply for knocking on a door to let someone know their car lights are on or some stupid shit.
We have a court and legislative system to fix fascist abuses AFTER THE FACT, because such abuses can be discussed in a calm, reasonable matter. This allows the cops to use overwhelming force to secure a situation IN AN EMERGENCY, securing the site and figuring out what happened afterwards. And yet, cops are STILL killed in the US every single week, despite all their precautions.
It's not the cops' fault that the court and legislative system is currently broken. Police investigations usually are designed to preserve evidence for trial; SWAT team responses are designed to preserve HUMAN LIFE first and foremost. Why? Because we can ultimately, in theory fix any abuse of procedure through the court system, but we cannot restore human life once taken.
If the cops think a kid is about to die, they're going to come in with guns drawn and ready. They're going to come in hard. And that's just the way it should be. The cops should be able to trust the tools they are given. Blame here rests with the worthless piece of subhuman flesh who committed the crime (compromise of the system) and whoever in IT screwed up the system security. Don't blame the cops.
This crime was not a "minor offense". A couple was put in grave mortal danger. Toddlers in the next room were put in mortal danger to a lesser degree.
You do realize that it's possible to purchase a fake SWAT outfit (along with a fake badge), right? At 2 am in the morning, it's difficult to think straight after someone kicks in your door & points a gun at you.
Doesn't matter. A murder charge can be placed against someone who either intends to kill, or shows a willful disregard for life. Dispatching a SWAT team, knowing full well that in a tense situation like a SWAT raid, there's the distinct possibiility someone might come out in a body bag, certainly seems to fit the latter. Cops are trained in such a way that they can usually take control of the situation without firing shots (this would be the Tactics part of the acronym), so the odds of a death aren't high, but there's so many ways things can go south, that it's certainly irresponsible enough to merit a murder charge if someone does die.
Thats not a problem, our bodies have evolved to be addicted to things. Millions are already addicted to sugar, caffene, etc. Do kids deal alcohol at school with guns? No because alcohol is readily available everywhere. If your kid gets addicted to drugs, its really the same as if they get addicted to television or sugar or lack of physical activity. Thats bad parenting, but we shouldnt stop people from CHOOSING to be bad parents. If it gets really bad, they take your children away. I would imagine drug use would be treated similarly.
People do not currently knock over 7/11s for alcohol or cigarette money. In any case, the crime should be robbery, no matter the motivations behind it.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
This shit happens with business all the time. You get a call from a TDD operator, basically the operator has some guy typing to them, generally on the Internet these days but it could be with a physical TDD device, and they relay everything to you. I've used it a few times to speak to a deaf friend prior to IM becoming big.
At any rate, guy I know owns a computer store. So he gets a TDD call from someone overseas who just happens to need his no-name local shop to ship out a ton of high end hardware, next day air. Price is no problem, he's willing to pay it all. The reason is, of course, it's a stolen credit card number. If the business actually shipped, they'd be stuck holding the bag. It's fraud, pure and simple.
The problem is that it is an ideal system since it is very anonymous. I don't know all the rules but more or less its a case of "The operator may not report on or in any way interfere with the conversation, they have to relay it verbatim to both parties." Also with the Internet connectivity, it is extremely easy to be untracable.
One of those cases where assholes are abusing an accessibility service for the disabled.
Frankly it pisses me off just as much when someone like you maintains they should just be able to shoot whoever the hell enters their house without bothering to verify their target first, as when the cops shoot an innocent person.
We don't have (legal) ownership of guns here for the average guy, so this doesn't really apply to me. However, if I wake up in the middle of the night to find someone sneaking around in my house, potentially armed or with accomplices, in the dark, then I think they are a legitimate target for anything I do have: kitchen knife, bat, whatever.
I have only two options, unless I can somehow hide everyone safely and wait for the police, which is obviously preferable if I don't know what I'm up against. One is to challenge the intruder directly. This will soon verify who they are and whether they are armed and/or accompanied. Unfortunately, it will only do so by dramatically reducing my own survival chances if they are willing to use violence.
The other option is that I surprise them, and do whatever is necessary to incapacitate them before they have chance to react and potentially fight back. This is the option I am going to choose, if I have to make the choice. Moreover, unless I am absolutely sure they are alone and unarmed, I am going to err on the side of caution and hit them with everything I've got, and keep going until they are either held securely or too broken or unconscious to pose a continuing threat. At that point I stop: I am concerned with protecting me and mine, not vigilante "justice". But anything less is risking my life and those of my loved ones to protect an intruder who is already breaking the law. I am legally allowed to use reasonable force to protect myself, and against an unknown aggressor, breaking them or rendering them unconscious is reasonable until you can be sure they no longer pose a threat.
If it comes to court and anyone thinks this is not reasonable force under those circumstances, I will be happy to demonstrate the less than one second it would take me to deliver multiple likely lethal strikes with a concealed knife to an unarmed person who challenged me openly if I were the intruder. Many law enforcement groups around the world have much more liberal rules of engagement than this during incidents where an armed or potentially armed threat is involved, and I would expect the same consideration to be given to anyone who acted realistically to protect their home from an intruder in otherwise unknown circumstances.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.