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"'"

Comments

Good grief

[spamking]

some people have way too much time on their hands.

Re:Good grief

[onion2k]

True, but in a good way. It's a pretty harrowing experience for the innocent victim but at least it was just a prank. A more nefarious criminal could use the same exploit to send a SWAT team to the other end of their jurisdiction while they carried out a robbery. This way the security flaw can be found and fixed with relatively little harm done.

Re:Good grief

[MightyYar]

I'd agree with you if the hackers had told the cops about the flaw and they didn't fix it - but in this case, they just exploited the flaw for their own amusement. Someone could have been killed, and then a lot of lives would have been ruined. Off the top of my head: the cop who shot an innocent or the innocent who shot a cop, the person who was shot, and possibly the hacker. Fucking with the cops is only funny in the movies.

Re:Good grief

[tnk1]

You say that, but good is relative.

What if the guy whose house this is happened to be at home cleaning his gun in his basement or in some way looked threatening to someone who was looking to assault his house? Sure, SWAT is trained not to shoot first and ask questions later, but I wouldn't be particularly happy to be flashbanged or tear gassed because some little shit can send a SWAT team to my house for no reason.

And of course, people who happened to be armed tend to look unfavorably at people attacking their home, whether they yell "Police" or not upon busting down their door. Sending a special weapons and tactics unit anywhere is a firefight waiting to happen.

Re:Good grief

[Guppy06]

"It's a pretty harrowing experience for the innocent victim but at least it was just a prank."

It's all fun and games until someone gets shot for resisting arrest?

Re:Good grief

[sholden]

Because no one has ever been killed in a SWAT raid before. Certainly never an innocent person.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Re:Good grief

[Hatta]

Just a prank? Good god man! Mistaken ID gets people killed in situations like this. Frequently these searches are executed without any announcement. Just men with guns breaking through your door. What's a good law abiding citizen going to do if they live in an area where home invasion robberies aren't uncommon? They're rightfully going to defend themselves. The cops will rightfully defend themselves. Long story short, people die because of lesser screw ups than this. Don't minimize it.

Re:Good grief

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. He's absolutely right and doesn't even know why--It's not at all funny that it's so appallingly EASY to fuck with people who have the power to arrest or execute someone who justifiably engages in defense of their home and family against armed invaders. In fact--it's downright distressing.

The cops should be held responsible for acting with preparation and intent to utilize lethal force based solely upon such readily compromised intelligence, and the flaw should be fixed immediately. The hacker--an idiot. But everyone knows the old saying--fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The cops have been getting fooled around the country for years and still done nothing to correct the situation.

Re:Good grief

[iminplaya]

Posting from work?

Re:Good grief

[GregPK]

I dunno, I think these days you would've found yourself under arrest if you had warned the police about the exploit. Plus, they'd likely charge you for terrorism.

Re:Good grief

[Firethorn]

It's a potentially lethal prank.

SWAT are paramilitary - just like soldiers in Iraq, they're generally much more primed to 'shoot first and ask questions later'. This, while acceptable in high risk situations like clearing buildings with terrorists in them, hostage situations, and active shooter cases, you don't want them running around in active mode in normal areas/situations.

SWAT has been known to kill people when stuff like this happens.

Re:Good grief

[Firethorn]

"Sure, SWAT is trained not to shoot first and ask questions later, "

I'm afraid that I'd have to disagree with this. At least compared with normal officers, SWAT is indeed trained to shoot first.

This can be considered acceptable if SWAT usage is restricted to high risk situations, where not using these tactics is likely to result in more deaths, but some areas have them serving most of the warrents - even on unarmed, non-violent dentists moonlighting as bookies.

Re:Good grief

[Teufelsmuhle]

I always thought it was, "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Re:Good grief

[Omnifarious]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Though I do commend the cops in question on having made the right decision and they didn't shoot the guy. But it could easily have gone the other way. With a little more knowledge by the teenager he could've set the cops up for it even more than he did and made it that much more likely.

Assassination by tricking the cops into doing it for you has now been proven to be possible. It's only a matter of time. And I bet if it had gone down that way instead of the way it did, we'd never even be hearing about this case.

Re:Good grief

[Jehosephat2k]

"Sending a special weapons and tactics unit anywhere is a firefight waiting to happen."

It's what we have when we live in a post-911/tripwire society. Shoot first, ask questions later. The fact that teh swat can be tricked into overkill mode/business as usual like this is quite frightening.

Re:Good grief

[IndustrialComplex]

Very true. The average bank robbery results in about $5,000 stolen by the robber.

Consider that you could probably make $30,000 per year as a bus driver. You would have to rob at least 5 banks per year to come close (No taxes :p) . I'd imagine that after the 3rd bank you would jump up pretty high on the FBI watchlist.

An average 'tech' job probably earns you more than the most active bank robber.

Re:Good grief

[encoderer]

The problem is that more of our crimes today are committed by criminals.

Re:Good grief

[pclminion]

I'd agree with you if the hackers had told the cops about the flaw and they didn't fix it - but in this case, they just exploited the flaw for their own amusement.

Tell the cops about it? Are you fucking insane? He would have been arrested and charged with some kind of terrorism. If he knows of a security issue, that means he was testing security -- a.k.a. "hacking." Sadly, this was probably the only way to point out the flaws in the system without ending up in prison. Unfortunately he didn't cover his tracks well enough.

Re:Good grief

[russ1337]

What if the guy whose house this is happened to be at home cleaning his gun in his basement or in some way looked threatening

What if the SWAT team was sent to this man's house... then it'd be freakin hilarious.

Re:Good grief

[Stripe7]

This is not the only way to point out the flaw to the police. If he was afraid of being prosecuted for finding the breach, he could have just as easily used anonymous proxies to send the information to police, government officials and the press. At the very least instead of sending the SWAT officers out he could have just left them a warning on the 911 system itself. He did it for kicks and put peoples lives in danger.

Re:Good grief

[Anti_Climax]

And of course, people who happened to be armed tend to look unfavorably at people attacking their home, whether they yell "Police" or not upon busting down their door. Sending a special weapons and tactics unit anywhere is a firefight waiting to happen.

More than that, no-knock warrant raids have, on more than one occasion, been served to the wrong address and in the process officers have been killed by surprised residents. If a home owner does not have a reasonable expectation that a no-knock warrant may be served (e.g. not doing illegal things that might result in a SWAT raid), they may not be held legally responsible for shooting or killing an officer. Obviously there has to be reasonable evidence that they did not know it was law enforcement when they acted, but ultimately the outcomes of these situations should be put on whomever was responsible for the incorrect address being served.

Dominos can find the right house, you'd think the cops could. Then again, when it's not right the pizza guy isn't going to be kicking in the door holding a gun.

Re:Good grief

[srhill]

possibly with a fake return address An anonymous letter with your real return address wouldn't help much now would it?

Re:Good grief

[DerekLyons]

The fact that teh swat can be tricked into overkill mode/business as usual like this is quite frightening.

So what would have them do? Ignore a 911 call? Wait around playing cards while a patrol call investigated a situation they might not have been able to handle (had the call been real)?

Re:Good grief

[mangastudent]

It's what we have when we live in a post-911/tripwire society. Shoot first, ask questions later.

HELLO???

Try "Post-Nixon's initiation of the War On Drugs".

Now, it's perhaps unfair to blame you for not knowing the entire history of something that probably started before you were born (I was in grade school, but it had an "educational" impact back then), but ... surely you've heard of no-knock warrants and their related atrocities which have been going on for decades and decades???

Bipartisian and nothing to do with the GWOT.

Re:Good grief

[theshowmecanuck]

scenario: Instead of a knife the homeowner gets out a gun (who cares what kind, pistol, shotgun, rifle). He goes outside and sees a cop in shadows under a bush and points the gun at him/her... all perfectly legal to him since all he can't tell is that these are prowlers trespassing on his property. (I am assuming California is a state that allows a home owner to actively defend his/her home with a gun. Regardless, the 'hacker' could have caused this to happen in a state where it is permissible.) The other police see him point the gun and shoot him. This could have been the result of this and would not have the fault of the police nor reflect badly on their training or on the quality of their work. It would be well within their training since they think the home owner is an armed and dangerous felon.

There are many permutations of this scenario.

Bottom line: you are wrong. Anyone, including the police can say that, 'this was an irresponsible and dangerous action the hacker took and someone could have been killed.' And by saying it, it certainly does not indicate any lack of confidence in the police training. And I don't believe the police are infallible, nor do I think that they believe they are infallible. Otherwise they wouldn't train so hard to make sure they do things as well as they possibly can. Why train if you are infallible?

Re:Good grief

[kalirion]

Send an anonymous letter, possibly with a fake return address.

Isn't the point to NOT have SWAT teams show up at random addresses?

Re:Good grief

[vishbar]

"just a prank"?

This boy intentionally caused a highly trained urban assault squad to burst into an innocent family's home under false pretenses that there was a murder in progress. They had been told by the "prankster" that there was someone with a live firearm inside the house--someone who had already supposedly shot the "prankster" and his sister. This was more than "just a prank"....the people in the house are VERY lucky that nobody was hurt.

Re:Good grief

[Mr. Freeman]

SWAT isn't going to shoot unless they have reason to AT THE SCENE. There is no way in hell anyone could send orders to SWAT to say "kill person XYZ". SWAT doesn't do assassinations, they are called in to prevent deaths if possible.

Even if orders do get sent to SWAT saying "kill person xyz at address abc", they aren't going to do anything because they'll immediately recognize that it's not real. The only reason SWAT members discharge their weapons is if there is an immediate danger to themselves or others (I.E. madman pointing a gun at police or shooting from a window at people below).

Re:Good grief

[Hatta]

You're absolutely right. Cops have way too much power and way too little accountability. In fact, one fellow killed a cop in just this kind of circumstance. No knock, thought it was a robbery, shot the intruder, ends up on death row as a cop killer.

Personally, I'm more afraid of the police than those they're supposed to protect me against.

Re:Good grief

[grahamd0]

People ignore such reports, as has been proven time and time again.

He didn't put anyone's lives in danger. The 911 center did, by using systems which can be spoofed by any fucktard with a cell phone.

[sarcasm] This young hero has shown great courage today. I think we should all commend his patriotic efforts to improve our police services and protect the public good. We can rest easier tonight knowing that pure, kind-hearted souls such as this young man are out there to protect us from these rogue paramilitary teams prowling our streets. [/sarcasm]

Re:Good grief

[Omnifarious]

SWAT isn't going to shoot unless they have reason to AT THE SCENE. There is no way in hell anyone could send orders to SWAT to say "kill person XYZ". SWAT doesn't do assassinations, they are called in to prevent deaths if possible.

Well, that's very true. But it would be stupid to do that, and I clearly somehow manage to miscommunicate my point in my post if that's what you think I meant.

To be perfectly clear, here are the steps you would follow:

1. Trick the 911 system like this teenager did.
2. Report the description of the person you want to kill.
3. Say that the person has killed a few other people and seems to be really handy with just about any weapon.
4. For even better effect, say that he has killed one person who tried to fight back in close quarters with a well placed jab to the throat.
5. Say the person is on PCP.
6. Call the person in question and say you're a neighbor and saw someone outside with a light.

Poof, there's a recipe for a likely 'accidental' shooting of an innocent person by the cops. You've basically told them there's a horribly deranged and dangerous person somewhere and then primed the person to react belligerently in the first instant the person notices anything.

It wouldn't work as well if your target were a woman because of cultural conditioning, but you might still be able to pull it off.

Even better, because the cops never, ever admit they're wrong, ever, the person then ends up framed for some bogus crime so the shooting seems justified.

Re:Good grief

[JesseMcDonald]

The other police see him point the gun and shoot him. This ... would not have the fault of the police nor reflect badly on their training or on the quality of their work.

I don't know about that. Generally I would consider someone to be at fault if they choose enter someone else's property without permission and end up shooting the owner. The owner has every right to be there, and to be armed, and to defend itself against intruders. Shooting someone for defending themselves against a threat you created hardly counts as self-defense, particularly when you're an uninvited guest on their property.

Re:Good grief

[FuzzyDaddy]

"Suspect has hostage in basement and is holding detonator to instantly kill victim. Suspect is unaware they have been identified. Suspect threatened to kill hostage at the first sign of the police."

Not saying it would necessarily cause the person to be shot, but it would certainly raise the odds, don't you think?

Re:Good grief

[MBGMorden]

Not for informing them per sé, but rather for messing around with the system enough to discover a security flaw (ie, you comprised it to see if it could be compromised).

It's not so much the act of informing them, but rather the act of breaking into the system in the first place.

Picture this: you come home from a days work. There's this teenager sitting at your dinner table waiting, and when you come in he says "Dude, did you know your lock is really easy to pick? Change it. I promise I didn't take anything. Later!".

I know one kid who is taking a quick trip to jail for breaking into my house . . .

Re:Good grief

[Odin_Tiger]

Better approach: Anonymously send all relevant info to a well-known security researcher or group who is more likely to know what to do with it and not easily silenced without creating a Streisand Effect.

Re:Good grief

[Firethorn]

While they might do it, my point was that SWAT are trained to shoot first and ask questions later; much more so than police officers.

Most officers can justify quite a bit of force. I'll note that the officers you pointed to DID go to trial. While they were ultimately acquitted, I'd tend to say that the fact that it went to trial indicates that it was exhaustively investigated.

It varies by department and jurisdiction; there can be huge differences between county and city police in the same area. One city's SWAT might be more restrained than another city's street officers. But, on average, SWAT are much more likely to resort to lethal violence than normal officers.

Re:Good grief

[daeley]

Only because american cops are dumb hicks who think that it's okay to shoot people while they're working

Well, you can't really expect them to go around shooting people on their days off, can you?

Re:Good grief

[NormalVisual]

SWAT isn't going to shoot unless they have reason to AT THE SCENE

Like if an innocent homeowner all of a sudden finds a bunch of unknown masked men violently breaking into his house that have no reason to be there and uses legal force to defend his home?

SWAT teams are *way* overused and almost never actually needed.

Re:Good grief

[WNight]

Oh, no! You see a problem you can't think of a solution to in the time it takes to hit reply, it will never work! Well then, I guess they should probably just commence bombardment, because the swat team could be overwhelmed.

How about getting them ready and on the way while leaving someone to investigate the issue? Was there no contact?

Nobody wanted to talk to the operator who took the call? To listen to the message? Ask for any details?

Re:Good grief

[keraneuology]

SWAT isn't going to shoot unless they have reason to AT THE SCENE.

If the bogus orders were "the people inside the house just shot a cop!" then unquestionably the trigger fingers would have been quite a bit happier.

Re:Good grief

[Beowulf_Boy]

You betcha.

I keep a shotgun under the bed. You better believe that if i'd woken up to masked men storming my house, i'd have opened fire. I shouldn't have to expect a swat team, and castle doctorine says I have the right to protect my house and person.

Re:Good grief

[Clockwork Apple]

It is offset though by the fact that more of our laws are being written, passed and enforced by them too.

Re:Good grief

[Nim82]

You have a point, but your assuming fear and self-preservation to some extent don't creep into the officers minds.

Here in the UK there was a case of an innocent carrying a table leg in a carrier bag being shot dead by a SWAT team after someone thought it was a gun and dialled 999. The innocent turned when shouted, because he wasn't doing anything wrong (and didn't know what the hell was going on) and got shot by an officer believing his life was in danger. 'Drop the weapon' shouts are rather meaningless to someone not carrying a weapon.

Then there's the fact officers may fear other peoples lives are in danger from the off, two words, suicide bomber.

Take the Brazilian shot dead in the UK after the London bombing, intel mistakenly said he was a terrorist, the officers on the ground worked on that assumption and swung into a different more lethal gear, a gear where warning the suspect doesn't apply and shoot-to-kill is the order of the day.

You can't order a SWAT team to kill someone, but by sending them to a location you are dramatically increasing the chances that there could be a lethal outcome.

I'm pleased they are apparently throwing the book at this cnut.

Re:Good grief

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The only reason SWAT members discharge their weapons is if there is an immediate danger to themselves or others (I.E. madman pointing a gun at police or shooting from a window at people below).

Yeah, that's what our firearms cops said too, right before they shot the guy carrying a table leg in a bag based on nothing but a poorly executed confrontation (easy to say with hindsight, of course) after a tip-off from a paranoid guy in a bar. Oh, and that little incident on the London Underground, where they shot the guy for getting on a tube train. (Apparently he was exhibiting suspicious behaviour by getting off a bus on the way to the station, then getting back on again; the observing officer had failed to notice that the underground station he had got off to enter the first time happened to be closed that day, and the controlling officers interpreted his actions as counter-surveillance techniques. This was just one in a string of ****-ups that led to the man's death.)

I appreciate that cops with guns are in an inherently difficult position. Make the wrong call, and someone you're supposed to protect dies because you didn't take out the criminal; make the wrong call the other way, and you kill an innocent civilian. But don't ever kid yourself that just because these guys are cops with some firearms training that either their physical or emotional reactions are perfect in a high-stress situation. Humans just don't work that way, no matter how well-intentioned and well-trained.

Re:Good grief

[spirality]

However, both are great reasons to vote for Ron Paul!

Re:Good grief

[Scrameustache]

SWAT isn't going to shoot unless they have reason to AT THE SCENE. [...] The only reason SWAT members discharge their weapons is if there is an immediate danger to themselves or others (I.E. madman pointing a gun at police or shooting from a window at people below).

• Two SWAT officers headed toward the car, one to arrest Culosi and one to protect the officer, Horan said.
  The officer involved, a 17-year veteran with long tactical experience, pulled up in a car behind the undercover officer's. "As the officer came out," Horan said, "he was bringing his weapon up. In the course of bringing his weapon up, it discharged. He has no real explanation how."
  The officer's name was not released.
  Horan said the officer shouted "Police!" at Culosi. "Right after 'Police!'" Horan said, "it went pow."
  Culosi was killed almost instantly.
  Horan said the bullet entered Culosi's left side, traveled through his body and was recovered on his right side. Horan said the officer was aware that he should not have had a finger on the trigger and that he should not have had his .45-caliber H&K handgun pointed at anyone.
• At 4:30 a.m. on Jan. 21, 2005, Noel and her husband, Charles, were asleep in the master bedroom of their row house when the heavily-armed Baltimore County SWAT team stormed through her home. According to the suit, officers had found "trace amounts of drugs" in trash cans outside of the home.
  Cheryl Noel feared criminal intruders had broken into her home and grabbed a lawfully registered gun and held it pointed at the floor, the suit states.
  Artson kicked in her bedroom door with his boot and, without identifying himself or telling Noel to drop her weapon, shot her three times, including once after she already had slumped to the floor

...and many more.

Re:Good grief

[BlackSabbath]

Yeah, so instead of risking being charged with "terrorism" for telling the cops about the security flaw, he actually goes and COMMITS REAL TERRORISM (and if you don't think this was terrifying for the family on the receiving end of the raid you're an idiot).

Before, he at least had some plausible defense had he been charged. Now, if he gets caught he'll have his balls handed to him on a plate!

Yet another variation of "we had to destroy the village in order to save the village". Talk about insane!

Re:Good grief

[JackieBrown]

The movies I watch say so

Re:Good grief

[overbaud]

I think if we are going to talk about ultimate responsibility it is with the developers and vendor of the software. They failed to write secure software for a mission critical system. Their failure was a lack of foresight, testing or both. Personally I am surprised that on slashdot where ripping vedors security seems to be a hobby that the fingers weren't pointed in this direction first post. It was the brains at the start of the process that failed, not the brawn at the end of it.

Re:Good grief

[VGPowerlord]

Hey, you just gave me a great idea. I'll use this return address:
G.W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500

They'll never realize it's fake!

Re:Good grief

[grahamd0]

You said he wasn't responsible. You implied that you believed his motivations were honorable. THAT is being fucking stupid.

Of course locking him up won't fix the problem, it doesn't mean he's not a criminal. The only more serious consequence would be for innocent people to die. That was a real possibility in THIS situation. The fact that it didn't happen is due only to the competence of the officers involved.

Re:Good grief

[JesseMcDonald]

I think individualists in general (of which Slashdot has a large representation, particularly when stories like this come up) tend to be pro-self-defense, which generally translates into "pro-gun" sentiment. The argument applies to self-defense in general, though, not just guns.

Re:Good grief

[k1e0x]

Not true. Cops kill lots of people because they *think* they are armed..

Or maybe some of think its fun.. read this, you'll be sick. http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w10.html

Re:Good grief

[Moridin42]

Thats probably still true in most states. Even if you saw someone outside of your home, you're probably unlikely to ever be able to convince a jury that you, or others inside, were in immediate danger. Not all jurisdictions have that requirement in order to justify lethal force when on your own property. There are actually some jurisdictions where lethal force is justified in defense of property. Other jurisdictions have so-called castle doctrines, where the threat of immediate danger is assumed to be true just from the prescence of an intruder.

Re:Good grief

[i_b_don]

Give me a break... this guy hacked into the system and "told" the cops where to go. How much harder would it have been to tell the people reading the message "All your bases are belong to us"? Or Simply "I'm taking over... where is Sarah Conner?" or if those are too abstract for boring 911 or swat operators just say "I've hacked into your system and am taking over... downloading sensitive files now...".

There are sooo many fun things you can write... he didn't have to write a "real" report for the swat to act on.

How about: "Rampaging kitty in the 1200 block of Chatsworth district. Warning extremely dangerous. Shoot on sight. White, fuzzy, and answers to the name 'Snook'ums'."

Do about 5 of those and someone will get the hint!

don

Re:Good grief

[stonecypher]

Fucking with the cops is only funny in the movies.

Bullshit. It's also funny on tv, in books, on the radio, and in Canada.

Re:Good grief

[Firethorn]

sworn in under the same oath

I really doubt that, where'd you hear it? I wouldn't be surprised at all if they're asked to swear an oath, but I doubt that it included:

'I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.'

Why is it that the NYPD and US Marines hold joint training sessions in the practice building down at Floyd Bennet Field?

Probably because as a result of the drug war, gangs and such are almost military forces; presenting the police with the same problems?

Room clearing is pretty much the same, whether you're a marine clearing a building overseas or SWAT clearing a drug house.

Up here in ND, I know the Minot Police department, and the Ward county sheriff's office work closely with Minot AFB. The local bomb squads work with the people on base. It makes sense to share training and facilities sometimes.

Now, while I don't necessarily object to the existence of SWAT, I DO object to their usage for every little thing; you had many areas stand up teams where they may only get a truly SWAT worthy task once a year or more, yet said SWAT team costs money continuously. In an attempt to justify the costs they end up using SWAT where normal officers would be better - such as the city who uses SWAT for all their warrants.

In many of these areas they'd probably do better to take some regular officers and give them extra training - pick one of the better shooters to double as a sniper if necessary. Pick a few of the others to learn how to use a MP5, M4, or other assault rifle/submachine gun and advanced building clearing tactics. Those officers get a little extra pay in exchange for being 'on call' for the serious stuff.

Re:Good grief

[totally bogus dude]

Generally I would consider someone to be at fault if they choose enter someone else's property without permission and end up shooting the owner.

SWAT teams specifically deal with "high-risk" warrants, i.e. cases where they are trying to arrest people who are believed to be armed and dangerous. Or do you think that if you commit a violent crime, you should be able to just go home and be perfectly safe from any form of police response, like in a video game?

In the situation we're discussing, the 911 system has been 'hacked' and the SWAT team are given bogus information. They don't know it's bogus: they're responding to the kind of dangerous situation that they are supposed to respond to. If someone at that premises appears to be an imminent threat to them, of course they're going to respond with force, often lethal force.

This is the reason for the outrage: you're sending people who are amped up and expecting to encounter life-or-death situations to some random person's house. If someone points a comb or remote control at them in poor lighting, they're going to assume it's a gun (they wouldn't be there if the person wasn't considered too dangerous for the regular police).

One big question is, why is a purely electronic hack able to mobilise a SWAT team? Surely there should be more checks and balances than that. Why is it possible to mobilise a response like this without someone in charging physically seeing and verifying a warrant?

Re:Good grief

[crashfrog]

If a home owner does not have a reasonable expectation that a no-knock warrant may be served (e.g. not doing illegal things that might result in a SWAT raid), they may not be held legally responsible for shooting or killing an officer.

Unless they're black. Funny how that works.

Re:Good grief

[Johnny5000]

I do feel sorry for Bush sometimes, many of the "Bushisms" are probably due to mild dyslexia.

I think this guy said it well:

"George Bush is not stupid. He's evil. OK? There's a huge difference between stupid and evil."

"George Bush can speak perfectly well, just not when he's being caring or compassionate or concerned about human beings. That's when he stutters and says shit like 'Hey it's hard to put food on your family.' Which he actually said, he said it's hard to put food on your family. Do you know why he said that? 'Cause he could give a fuck how hard it is for you to put food on the table for your family. But you know when he gets really downright poetic and articulate and focused is when he's talking about war and death and murder and retribution. All of a sudden he's Dylan Thomas."

"Here's the thing, if you gave Darth Vader a big basket of puppies he'd look like a fucking imbecile. 'Hey Darth, how do you like those puppies?' 'Uh, well they're round...furry...to, uh, pet...here I don't really like puppies, here, take these.' 'What are you gonna do to Alderaan?' 'WE WILL DESTROY YOUR PLANET, YOU WILL BE DUST BENEATH THE HEELS OF OUR BOOTS!' That's George Bush! I know a supervillain when I see one!"

Re:Good grief

[Ash Vince]

How about: "Rampaging kitty in the 1200 block of Chatsworth district. Warning extremely dangerous. Shoot on sight. White, fuzzy, and answers to the name 'Snook'ums'."

Do about 5 of those and someone will get the hint! Either that or there will be 5 (ex)cat owners wondering why their little 'Snook'ums' isn't begging for his food bowl to refilled as soon as they get home.

Re:Good grief

[information_retrieva]

Um, excuse me, but the hacker/idiot did not fuck with people who have the power to arrest or execute someone , he fucked with an innocent family of four. As far as I'm concerned, this moron is guilty multiple counts of assault with a deadly weapon. If someone had been seriously injured, it could quite possibly have been manslaughter.

The police were NOT the victims of this so-called prank. Someone who would risk the lives of a set of complete strangers for his own amusement is clearly a menace to society and should do jail time.

Re:Good grief

[aulou05]

No, he didn't commit terrorism. Can we all please stop misusing this term? Seriously, it's the fact that everyone is trained to break out the "T word" for every little stupid scenario that gives the idea so much power in the first place.

Is this kid a criminal? Check. A lunatic? Check. Sadistic? Probably. An asshole? Definitely. But a terrorist, I think not.

Just because you cause somebody to experience fear does not make you a terrorist. If you believe that, just about any violent crime is terrorism. The thing is, I agree with what you are saying, but you've fallen into the trap of perpetuating the fear mongering that makes living in a post 9/11 world suck so much.

Re:Good grief

[fredrated]

Writing perfect software is not possible, even if the software is tested over and over again. Software is written by humans and tested by humans, and until they (we) become perfect, or are replaced by perfect software generators, it isn't going to happen.

Re:Good grief

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a break. The ultimate responsibility is with the criminal that hacked the system and put innocent people in danger of getting killed by a swat team. No software is perfect, it's impossible to produce. Never has been and never will. Justifying criminal activity because of a software flaw, then blaming the software developer just doesn't work any more.

By that logic it's the QA team's fault for not finding the flaw, the sales person's fault for selling a faulty product and the end user's fault for not properly securing their system by running imperfect software.

This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on Slashdot and that's no mean feat.

It's like saying it's ok to rob a house because the person didn't have riot gates over the windows and a $20000 safe door with swiss made timer lock on it.

It simply doesn't fly. Granted people need to try harder to find security flaws, but you can't blame your criminal actions on someone else. It doesn't work.

"Your honor, my client shot the man because guns are imperfect and they have a security flaw: anyone can pull the trigger. As well the victim should have been wearing body armor. It's the victim's fault for not securing their body and the gun company for making an unsafe weapon."

I call this asshat logic. It shows a serious unwillingness to accept responsibility for your actions. A non criminal would discover the flaw, and tell the police about it so they get it fixed.

-AC

Re:Good grief

[nsayer]

I don't know how many times the medical examiner has to write homicide on the death certificate of somebody who just happened to die while being arrested before something gets done.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. "Homicide" simply means one person dying at the hands of another. No value judgement is involved. "Murder" is a sub-set of "homicide," but that's not the ME's call to make.

Stupid & dangerous

[Arthur B.]

If the guy that was targeted thought someone was breaking in and tried to defend himself, he would probably have been killed... nice prank :(

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see it now, some geek hacks the new pentagon war room and hey presto some idiot goes and invades iran

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[msimm]

Good thing they typically yell police. But it's still a stupid prank.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[elrous0]

Burglars, murderers, and rapists can yell "Police!" too.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[theguru]

But.. but.. that would be illegal.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[SatanicPuppy]

If 10 rapists in riot gear with automatic weapons are running at me yelling, "Police!" I'm fucked whether I drop the gun or not.

It's usually not all that difficult to tell the difference between a police raid and a home invasion. The cops will not even attempt to be subtle once they start moving in.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[megaditto]

It was a typo. I mean, Q and N are right next to each-other.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[Firethorn]

It's happened.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[pla]

It's usually not all that difficult to tell the difference between a police raid and a home invasion.

Sitting down to eat dinner when a swat team breaks down the door, yes. The police, however, favor pre-dawn raids. You presume that someone would have the same capacity to tell the difference in the 1.7 seconds between "sound asleep", "guys with guns yelling at me", and "fire off as many rounds at my attackers as possible".

You also presume someone would care about the difference, rather than considering the police just as dangerous (if not more) than most actual criminals.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[legirons]

"If the guy that was targeted thought someone was breaking in and tried to defend himself, he would probably have been killed"

So he needs better weapons...

If you can't kill all members of a SWAT team invading your property, then you need to rethink your strategy for defending yourself

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[hawk]

>Every time an officer sees someone, 'Police' will be the first word out of his mouth.

This may have something to do with the divorce rate for cops:

[sultry] "Hey, honey, look what I put on for you."

"Police, wow."

[confused] "Huh?"

"Police, I like it."

[hurt] "Knock that off!" {*sniff*}

"Police, I can't."

[angry] "Goodbye." :)

hawk

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[Clandestine_Blaze]

You also presume someone would care about the difference, rather than considering the police just as dangerous (if not more) than most actual criminals.

People who shoot at cops because they find them dangerous deserve to be in jail. That's called being a paranoid sociopath. Believe it or not, you don't get to shoot people just because they make you nervous, even if you have flimsy logic to prop it up. And please, spare me the "but they're in my house;" that only holds water when there's the reasonable presumption of danger, and it turns out that saying "I think cops are dangerous" isn't actually reasonable presumption of danger under the law. I don't think the poster was implying that someone should be allowed to shoot at the police just because they look dangerous. Is it legal to shoot at the police if they DO NOT properly identify themselves after breaking your door down with weapons drawn and you have no way of knowing who they are? In most states, it is perfectly legal to defend your home under such circumstances. The law in most cases does swing in favor of the homeowner but they better be damned sure that they thought it was a burglar. This is why the police are supposed to make every attempt to identify themselves.

So if they yell police, have identifiable uniforms on, and even give you a chance to drop your weapon and try to talk you, then no, you are guilty for murder if you pull that trigger anyway.

The myth that pervades America that you're allowed to shoot people you find in your house is distressing. If there's a mentally retarded man in your living room and you shoot him because you don't know him, you're not defending your home, you're a fucking murderer.

Grow up. You are right, you are not allowed to shoot at someone just because they're in your home. If that person is not threatening to harm you, and they are not wanted in your home, then you call the police.

However, there is a big difference between a mentally retarded man standing in my living room, being quite harmless to myself and everyone else in the room, versus 8-12 highly armed men in ski masks breaking in with their guns drawn during a pre-dawn raid while I'm presumably in bed. When a bunch of people with guns kick your door down, you have only a few seconds to grab your gun and defend yourself from what could potentially be a burglary. Even if the police scream "POLICE", that noise will probably just startle you out of sleep and you wouldn't even understand what they're saying in time.

This isn't a computer simulation - all it takes is for one nervous police officer or one extremely scared homeowner to pull the trigger and to make the situation really ugly. Unfortunately, very few people possess calm enough nerves to assess the situation, realize that it is the police that broke the door down, and to immediately put the gun down without making any threatening gestures.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[pla]

The myth that pervades America that you're allowed to shoot people you find in your house is distressing.

No, the fact remains that in most US states, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself.

In any case, this amounts to an irrelevant distinction, because you missed my entire point. In the situation I described, even if the homeowner did manage to take out a few of his attackers, he would most certainly still lose (and the press would call it "suicide by cop"). Seems a bit of a harsh outcome for doing nothing wrong, but I guess we pay that price for the 'safety" of having a class of armed citizens permitted to break down your door and drag you out of bed without announcing themselves (but hey, the USSC approved no-knock, so we'll call half a dozen corpses cool, right?).



If there's a mentally retarded man in your living room and you shoot him

Careful, don't get that strawman too close to any open flames...

I grew up in a place (in the US) where quite a few people distrusted the government (and the majority did not count as paranoid whackjobs, though I won't deny we had our share of those). The condition I described most certainly applied - And many private citizens had a better home armory than the police. I only meant to point out that, if the same thing happened to one of those people, they wouldn't care about the police/criminal distinction, they would simply think the government had finally gone all the way bad, and defend their home with deadly force.

...with two sleeping toddlers

[siyavash]

Don't these hackers THINK OF THE CHILDREN? ^^ ...I know, I know. :p

Forged CID

[jfroot]

"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.

Re:Forged CID

[222]

Hrmm. 911 uses ANI, not your garden variety CID. I'm not saying it's impossible to spoof, but WAAAAAY harder and typically involves something being mis configured at your telco. ANI is also used to handle billing for 1-800 numbers, etc.

Re:Forged CID

[Experiment 626]

While his hack could turn out to be something that simple, my understanding is that emergency response systems use the ANI identification information (Automatic Number Identification, the actual identification information that phone companies use for billing) rather than the Caller ID (easy to spoof, block, etc. and in general much less accurate than people give it credit for).

Proxy

[kilo_foxtrot84]

assault with an assault weapon by proxy I find this charge to be very interesting. Are there any sort of precedents for it?

Re:Proxy

[Rob the Bold]

assault with an assault weapon by proxy

I find this charge to be very interesting. Are there any sort of precedents for it?

So if he got someone else to make the phony call to send SWAT to the wrong house, it would be "assault with an assault weapon by proxy by proxy"?

Scary that a computer report alone...

[elrous0]

Scary to think that a team of grown, (presumably) reasonable adults can be convinced to kick down your door and point a gun in your face just because a random report on a computer screen says so--with absolutely no confirmation at all from an superior or actual living person involved in the case.

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.

Re:Scary that a computer report alone...

[LWATCDR]

"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."
I guess you didn't read the story.
It was a PHONE CALL. He somehow forged the CID and it looked like the call came from that address.
So what you would like is this," Someone with an assault rife is trying to break into my home". We will send you some help as soon as we get permission?

"We live in a time where fear is threatening *WAY* more people than terrorism ever could." Yep in in this case it is your fear of the goverment that is outside of reason. The police seemed to have acted properly in this case and showed good restraint. The man "heard" a noise in his backyard and went out with a "KITCHEN KNIFE" to see what it was. Brilliant... So the SWAT team after being told that there was someone with a weapon at that location runs into a guy in his PJs with a knife! And they didn't shoot him.

dealing with innocents

[Speare]

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 asshats like this one

[techpawn]

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.

Security is an illusion

[mdigiac1]

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?

Re:So what state is the crime?

[east coast]

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.

Re:One really stupid hack

[Maxo-Texas]

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.

Re:So what state is the crime?

[spotdog14]

Yes, it crossed the state lines. That is a felony. Sucks to be that kid! But what a dumbass thing to do in the first place. At least send the Swat Team to McDonalds or something.

How does this keep happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really naive about security, so I can't understand how these security breaches happen time and time again. If these systems were web based, or offering some kind of web or internet service which necessitated having open TCP ports I'd find this easier to understand. Why is it that ordinary office systems (and bespoke Command and Control Systems), and documents sitting on file servers behind corporate firewalls, with no direct connection to the outside world are always so vulnerable? Surely it's possible to run an internal network (ethernet or whatever) in such a way as to make it completely inaccessible from the outside world, while running an email and web gateway?

Re:How does this keep happening?

[moderatorrater]

Surely it's possible to run an internal network (ethernet or whatever) in such a way as to make it completely inaccessible from the outside world, while running an email and web gateway? The problem is that you can get in through the web and email gateways. Any interface to the outside world has the potential to be hacked, especially when the interface is one that naturally lets things through (such as email or web sites). The hacker can now attack the server software directly or they can try and sneak something malicious through. If the email server lets a virus through, then there's plenty of ways that an attacker could control that computer and wreak havoc.

That's also not counting on social engineering or internal leaks. If your minimum wage secretary decides that this must be the new sysadmin who doesn't know where the server room is yet and they must not have their card follow me please I'll put in the security code for you and now leave you alone in the room, then we've got problems. Or claim they're servicing the copy machine, or repairing a workstation, or they know a guy. That's not even taking into account the authorized users who don't use it correctly (ie copy it to the laptop, leave it unencrypted, and then has their laptop stolen).

Any interface with the outside world is an attack vector, including humans.

Okay, having rtfa

[SatanicPuppy]

What he hacked up was their caller id system, so it looked like the call was coming from the house in question. He stated in the call that he'd overdosed on cocaine, was shot, and that someone was going to kill his sister. Sounds like they sent 20 guys, which would seem to be a rational response given drugs + guns + unknown number of assailants.

They handcuffed the homeowner because he went out in his skivvies with a kitchen knife because he thought he heard people on the lawn. I guess he saved his door getting kicked in, but I'm not sure he sees it as a good thing.

Re:Okay, having rtfa

[markana]

If you read the Seattle-area news, you get a bit more detail (but not much). He's got a juvenile record, and is suspected of doing this in other cities.

Looks like he picked the family at random (from his earlier entry into AOL's systems), then called them to verify their name and address. It seems to me that he tried to come up with a scenario that would generate the maximum possible response from the police, which is about what he got. If the homeowner was carrying a gun instead of a knife, he'd most likely be dead now. That was probably the high score that Ellis wanted to hit.

We'll see if anyone ever leaks how he did it. Could have been as simple as a compromised VOIP switch sending bogus ANI data down a trunk. Or maybe he entered a record directly into the dispatch system (which isn't supposed to be connected to the net).

At least he wasn't smart enough to fully cover his tracks.

Re:Okay, having rtfa

[jafiwam]

Those databases are not all that hard to get into.

If you are a CLEC (local telephone company) or are reselling phone service and using a phone switch, you get access to make the entries. This is quite common amongst big companies with big phone systems or small ISPs expanding dial up locations.

Then when you provision the lines, you put the entries in. It's just data in a switch, just like a router has routes and a firewall has rules. It is subject to the same "model X has this buffer over run" and "model Y has this default password" stuff that other devices have.

And when it's being set up, you dial through it, and politely ask 911 operators to verify the address that came up on their screen was the one you wanted and the number matches, etc.

It's not some big WOPR mainframe in a tunnel somewhere run by the best and brightest local authorities, it's a patchwork of stuff thrown together by phone techs who for the most part are careful, and for the most part are authorized to do what they are doing.

Yeah, not many high school "hackers" think of it as a target right off the bat when they feel destructive, but getting in or getting lucky trying random stuff with them is not hard at all. Half the battle is just knowing such things exist.

Obligatory and most likely ignored...

[Romancer]

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.

Re:One really stupid hack

[njfuzzy]

"Or if you really want to embarrass them send them to the local church after midnight."

Yeah. I get pretty embarrassed watching goth kids have sex too.

Jerk....

[pablo_max]

I can not begin to tell you what a pain in the ass this was. You can not imagine how hard it is to tell your boss you are late for work because you are currently under siege from your the swat team. Totally messed up my morning.

Jail time need

[moracity]

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.

Read the story

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Stupid Kid. Lucky Kid.

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Man what a stupid prank to be pulling. As previous posters mentioned, he should have at least sent SWAT to a McDonalds or WalMart and not a private home. 10 years ago a SWAT team here in Boston made a felony entry into the wrong apartment and ended up roughing up an elderly priest named Accelynne Williams so badly that he ended up dying of a heart attack. If this SWAT team had injured or killed any of the people in the house they responded to, even if it was a similar case of just triggering a heart attack, this kid probably would have been charged with murder or manslaughter.

He did try to defend himself

[paladinwannabe2]

Apparently the owner heard a 'prowler' and went out armed with a kitchen knife. The kid's lucky no one was killed- he'd be looking at murder charges in addition to whatever fraud charges he's got now.

Re:Drugs

[Grey_14]

The problem here is the illegality and absurdity of the drug war.

Yeah, That's the problem with people hacking the 911 system to dispatch SWAT teams, good call.

Phillip Dick story?

[moankey]

Sounds like something out of a Phillip Dick story where nothing is seen as being wrong with the system even if the couple were killed. Acceptable losses or some other acronymed term, until one day one of the SWAT members realizes the prank is pulled on his own family only to realize its too late for him to warn them.
At which point the cog in the machine becomes the hero in various hollywood ways and somehow joins forces with the prankster that has some far reaching political message wrapped around his pranks.

Re:WTF!?

[ceoyoyo]

So by that reasoning a 19 year old just HAD to do this because he COULD?

The system should have been secure yes. This idiot should have known that sending a SWAT team off on a wild goose chase to someone's house was a dumb idea.

The ability to commit a crime is not a justification for committing that crime.

Re:Drugs

[Experiment 626]

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.

Re:So what state is the crime?

[DragonWriter]

Yes, it crossed the state lines. That is a felony.

Its almost certainly a felony in any case. Crossing state lines makes it more likely to also be a federal crime; but the two categories are orthogonal.

Re:Drugs

[tnk1]

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.

Would not have been murder

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Manslaughter maybe, but not murder.

Re:Would not have been murder

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Re:Would not have been murder

[neil-ngc]

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.

Re:Would not have been murder

[NMerriam]

Is there an expectation that cops should shoot someone?

No, but the legal standard used in most places is not whether or not you EXPECT harm to happen, rather whether the harm is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of your action. Most juries would agree that sending armed officers to a house in the night represents a pretty predictable and finite set of outcomes, some of which involve violence (whether to the resident or the police).

So, for example, if you rob a bank with a toy gun, you're obviously not intending to shoot someone, but if the security guard shoots at you and hits an innocent bystander, you'll be charged with that death because it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of waving what appeared to be a weapon in front of an armed guard.

Re:Would not have been murder

[stonecypher]

You're misunderstanding. Murder requires intent. The worst he could get would be reckless endangerment / manslaughter 1.

The real crime here

[Critical Facilities]

is that kid's hairdo. Yo kid, the 1987 season of Growing Pains called and wants its hair style back. This guy + this guy = this guy?

Re:my feelings

[RightSaidFred99]

Well, if by awesome you mean "could have killed someone" then yeah. This little shitcake should be sent to prison for quite a while.

If you got to be arrested, be it by swat

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

New hacker category

[Anonymous Coward]

For people who do this kind of stuff.

Whitehat Grayhat Blackhat Asshat

It may be the police's / politician's own fault for having the unprotected system and bla bla bla... But when they catch the guy who did it, 5+ years in the slammer I say. That's the kind of situation when you can take the Hacker Manifesto and wipe your ass with it.

'Prank' a very *poor* choice of words

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

Re:my feelings

[why-is-it]

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.

I wonder if you might feel the same way if you (or someone you care about) was on the receiving end of such an 'awesome' prank?

What if someone had died? Would it still be awesome?

<sigh>

More details on how he did this...

[Kronos666]

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071017/NEWS02/710170400 Basically he used a system for the hearing impaired to relay a message... the operator then called the police. He also tried to do the same thing to someone else who was "cheating in an online game". You have to love these kids...

Re:my feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

What if someone had died? Would it still be awesome?

Just because someone dies doesn't mean something isn't awesome.
Plenty of awesome things result in death.

Also, it's not like there's a shortage of people on earth.

I'm slow, but I get it right every time now!

[weston]

It's usually not all that difficult to tell the difference between a police raid and a home invasion.

Yeah! Well, it took me a while, but I've gotten to the point where I don't even have to wake up to tell the difference!

Just last week I woke up to find my already splintered and duct-taped door kicked in yet again, and I'd slept right through it! I'm pretty it was the police based on what they took and what they didn't take.

See, I've gotten to the point where I keep two packages handy whenever I go to bed: one with ID, a personal statement, some donuts, coffee, milk, etc., and the other with a few valuables and convincing amount of cash I round up before I go to bed. I give the appropriate one to whoever breaks in that night. I used to mess up *all* the time -- and while, sure, the thugs appreciated the donuts, they'd always want the valuables, too, even though they'd get nicer about it if the donuts were good. And you could see the police really had their feelings hurt when they thought I was trying to buy them off, and nobody wants that.

But I've gotten it right the last 15 times -- even last week, when I woke up in the morning to find out I'd slept through it all. The donuts were gone and the valuables were still there! I'm looking forward to the time when this will all be sorted out and I can just buy myself another door and stop spending all this money on donuts, duct tape, and miscellaneous valuables, but in the meanwhile, I'm glad I've adapted and learned to cope before doing anything really stupid like overreacting when someone breaks in.

The cops did everything right.

[The Breeze]

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.

Re:Really risky hack

[Isaac-Lew]

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.

Not a minor

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes me smile that the asshole that made the call is 19 years old and just old enough not to be tried as a minor.

Re:Drugs

[crabpeople]

Veering dangerously offtopic

"Not solving the underlying problem that the drugs exist and can be used to feel good and are addictive."

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.

Ugh, more TDD abuse

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Drugs

[Jherek Carnelian]

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. If drugs were legal, then politicians would not have felt the need to grand-stand so much about "being tough on drugs" and thus would never have funded the SWAT team in the first place.

felony murder

[westlake]

Interesting. The fact that the armed men are cops, doesn't change that? Is there an expectation that cops should shoot someone?

It was called "the felony murder rule" when I first heard of it years ago.

It means, simply, that you are responsible for any deaths, from any cause, that were set in motion by your criminal misconduct. You abduct a child who suffocates in your closet, or a woman who goes into a diabetic coma.

It is reckless endangerment, raised to the n(th) power.

Re:Frankly.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

he forged ANI, not caller-ID

[vinn01]

911 systems use ANI, not caller-ID. The difference is explained below...

From http://www.tech-faq.com/ani-automatic-number-identification.shtml

ANI (Automatic Number Identification) is a system utilized by telephone companies to identify the DN (Directory Number) of a calling subscriber.

ANI serves a function similar to Caller-ID, but utilizes different underlying technology. In addition, although Caller-ID can be blocked by prefixing a call with *67, ANI is (usually) impossible to block.

ANI was originally developed for telephone company billing purposes. ANI technology is also now offered to commercial customers who may benefit from knowing who is calling them. In addition, ANI is one of the core technologies behind the 911 emergency service.

ANI data is usually transmitted in-band using multi-frequency (MF) signaling. However, ANI data can also be transmitted separately if you have an ISDN PRI.