Online "Swatting" Becomes a Hazard For Gamers Who Play Live On the Internet

HughPickens.com writes Nick Wingfield reports at the NYT that practical jokers who call in bogus reports of violence provoking huge police responses have set their sights on a new set of victims: video gamers who play live on the Internet, often in front of huge online audiences. Last month, several hundred people were watching Joshua Peters as he played RuneScape from his parents' home as video showed Peters suddenly leaving his computer when police officers appeared at the house and ordered him and his family at gunpoint to lie face down on the ground after some had called 911 claiming Peters had just shot his roommate. "With the live-streaming platforms, it amplifies the entire situation," says James Clayton Eubanks who says he has been swatted about a half-dozen times while he streamed his Call of Duty sessions. "Not only do they get to do this and cause this misery, they get to watch it unfold in front of thousands of people."

Game companies like Twitch have publicly said that swatting is dangerous, but that there is little else they can do to prevent the pranks. Tracking the culprits behind the pranks is difficult. While bomb scares and other hoaxes have been around for decades, making threats anonymously has never been so easy. Swatters use text messages and online phone services like Skype to relay their threats, employing techniques to make themselves hard to trace. They obtain personal addresses for their victims through property records and other public databases, or by tricking businesses or customer service representatives at a victim's Internet provider into revealing the information. Brandon Willson, a gamer known online as "Famed God," made up a murder to get police to go to an unsuspecting west suburban resident's home last year and ended up behind bars in Nevada awaiting extradition. As part of the investigation, police traveled to Las Vegas to help local police execute a search warrant at Willson's home. Computers seized there contained evidence of the swatting incident, as well as similar incidents across the country, prosecutors claim. Willson faces up to five years in prison if he is convicted on charges of computer tampering and one count each of intimidation, computer fraud, identity theft and disorderly conduct. His mother, Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos. "He would never swat," she says.

Comments

Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

> His mother, Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos. "He would never swat," she says.

With a mother as stupid as this, no wonder he's behaving like an asshole.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Jason Levine]

In defense of the mother:

1) When people are arrested, their friends, family, and neighbors routinely say "I can't believe he did that. He seemed like such a nice guy."

2) Parents naturally want to see the good in their children and will ignore any bad warning signs lest their kid be anything less than perfect. (Disclosure: I'm a father of two and while I think they are mostly good kids, they are far from perfect.)

Some people are just really good at hiding their misdeeds or limiting their wrongdoings to specific areas. (e.g. Calling 911 on people playing video games.)

Re: Idiot Parents

[drinkypoo]

In defense of the mother:

She took the job. It's her responsibility. Stop making excuses.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

The point isn't that his mother thinks he's innocent, it's that she thinks smoking, drinking and tattoos are in some way relevant to that judgement.

Re: Idiot Parents

[ranton]

Your statement, "she took the job" in no way refutes what Jason Levine just said.

The first guy said to give the parents a break because parenting is hard. The second guy said "she took the job", obviously implying you shouldn't have kids unless you are prepared to do a good job at that very hard job. Sounds like he was refuting exactly what the first poster said. Be careful about calling people stupid when you can't understand a very simple argument (regardless of whether or not you agree with it).

There are plenty of very tough jobs in this world. My job is a lot more difficult than raising my daughter is (although not a more important job than being a dad). But I can't just shrug and say my job is tough if I fail at work. I took a job where I knew the responsibilities and challenges were significant, both at home and work, so now it is my duty to do well at both.

That said, even the best of kids can make horrible mistakes, so you would need to know quite a bit about the home dynamic before immediately blaming the parents. From personal experience I would say these kids' parents are more than likely bad parents, but it would be idiotic for me to just assume they are. Even good kids can be convinced to do bad things through peer pressure, for instance.

Re: Idiot Parents

[zennyboy]

Precisely; I am a father of two. I believe I have done a very good job.

Just say one of my kids 'goes rogue' and... shoplifts. Does that suddenly mean I did a bad job?

Even if I did teach right from wrong from birth? At some age you have to understand children think for themselves, know right from wrong, and maybe just choose wrong.

I do not believe this should reflect on (me | us) as (a) parent(s)...

Re: Idiot Parents

[Jack Griffin]

In defense of the mother:

1) When people are arrested, their friends, family, and neighbors routinely say "I can't believe he did that. He seemed like such a nice guy."

I've noticed this a lot, and so told my parents that if I'm ever arrested and the media come asking you've got to say "yeah he was a real dick, I'm glad he got busted". It'd be worth it just for the reaction. I'm also a parent and have a list of stupid quotes ready just in case my kids get caught doing something stupid (we all do stupid things, but only some of us get caught). The media are fuckwits, they don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mother did a terrible job at teaching you not to be a dick.

Everybody thinks they're smarter and would catch all this crazy stuff until it happens to them.

Re: Idiot Parents

[gl4ss]

the point is rather that the mother thinks that just keeping him from smoking, drinking and getting inked up means that he is not a swatter... ...ironically, when if he had been drinking and smoking with inked up friends, he probably would not have swatted or even thought of swatting some people on twitch.

sounds like the guy was really, really really fucking bored.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

asocial transgressive behavior like swatting does not require alcohol consumption, nor any drug consumption. it's a function of personality, which is more a reflection on upbringing, family/ social problems

so the mother is more likely deflecting and avoiding blame for a behavior which is a reflection on her, and, grasping at straws, picks easy shallow bogeymen to blame instead rather than accept responsibility. which, as a psychological defense mechanism, is also reflected in her son's behavior: don't take a loss, push it out there and make someone else take a punishment for your failures

that being said, there is obviously a relationship between alcohol consumption and petty criminal behavior. especially among the young

people take drugs to become less inhibited. when less inhibited, they display faulty judgment. with faulty judgment, they do things which get them in trouble

so, the tattoos and the smoking: yeah, that's stupid

but inquiring as to whether he consumed alcohol regularly or not: completely relevant and valid

I disagree pretty much entirely. The mother is simply displaying a failure of logic, in that she is assuming that because her child does not do Bad Thing A then it means the child cannot possibly do Bad Things B, C, and D.
Which is probably only party her fault, as she has most likely been told that by various Religious and Law Enforcement Groups. (see the Logical Fallacy known as the 'Gateway Drug' argument for an example)

I've known plenty of people who smoked and had alcohol problems but would never SWAT anybody, and people who have an absolute hatred of any sort of substance abuse who would SWAT their own mother for a quick laugh.
But to address you point more directly, the use of substances does often lead to less inhibited behavior, but in most cases it does NOT lead to behavior that you are not already somewhat pre-disposed to engage in. If you're not a thief, you're not going to steal just because you got drunk or high, just like you're not going to go kill someone unless you're already the type of person who would feel no qualms in doing so. The booze and etc. simply make you less likely to give a shit about getting caught, or alter your judgement enough to make you think you can get away with it when you probably won't.
I've been smashed drunk and stoned off my ass many times in situations where I could have stolen, raped, or even killed and never been caught. But I never even thought about doing those things, because I'm not a Thief, a Rapist, or a Murderer.

Re: Idiot Parents

[drinkypoo]

No, and you also might think "She would never do that." That doesn't make you an "idiot parent", despite what the OAC said.

Yes, that is precisely what it does. Living in that kind of denial only leads to providing a shitty upbringing. You can't believe that about your child unless you're not just completely in denial, and also completely disconnected from their life. That kind of thing usually happens because parents bullshit their children, children detect it, and lose all respect for their parents. Our modern world is primarily bullshit and if you give the official explanations, you're going to program your children for bullshit.

I got the opposite treatment, which is also no good. I was poorly socialized (manic-depressive mother, absentee sperm donor alcoholic father, nice pick mom! protip: don't meet potential fathers in bars) and it took me until my 20s for my nuts to drop (figuratively.) Everything was blamed on me. But what this kid has is nothing being blamed on him. He's a precious, special snowflake who could never do anything wrong. And the proof is that his mother is still claiming he couldn't be doing anything wrong while being confronted with the evidence. This almost certainly is not the first time. People tend to be true to form, even in a crisis situation. You're not seeing some unusual behavior here.

Now, if we extrapolate this same behavior over most of the country, you get what we have now, where everyone is shitty to everyone and nobody takes responsibility for anything.

Yes, yes I can blame the parents. They're the ones making shitty people. It's their job #1 to make people who you would want near you. Throwing up your hands and saying "parenting is hard" is not an acceptable response to finding out that it's a hard job. It's the response that my parents gave, and trust me, it's not the one you want them giving. It leads to doing a shit job, and it's not just the offspring that has to deal with the consequences. I was a ball of hate, much of it for myself, for more than half my life. If you don't think that has downstream consequences, look around. It's not uncommon, and it has had real-world outputs. Hurt people hurt people.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Jason Levine]

I wasn't saying "give parents a break because parenting is hard." I said that parents naturally want to see the good in their kids and not the bad. I do recognize when my children do something wrong and I will have serious discussions with them (backed up with punishment if need be) to explain why the action is wrong, what they should have done instead, and what the consequences of the action could have been. That being said, nobody wants to think they're doing a bad job at something. Especially when it comes to parenting. (We'll leave out those "parents" - and I use the term loosely - that don't seem to care about their kids and/or actively hurt their kids. Those people don't deserve the title "Parent.")

I hate to compare parenting to the Nigerian scams, but think of this as a similar principle. If you get hooked in a Nigerian scam, your options are to a) admit you were wrong and were fooled or b) keep believing that the whole thing is true and you weren't wrong. It can be very hard for people to admit that they were wrong/fooled so they persist with option B long past the time when any objective observer would say there was the slightest possibility that they would see any return.

Similarly, in parenting, there's a drive to think of yourself as a good parent and this means (in part) thinking that you've raised your kid right. If you raised your kid right, they should be able to make appropriate decisions about what to do and what not to do. So parents can easily fall into the trap of just assuming that their kid is turning out ok while not seeing warning signs of bad activity. It's a blind spot that parents can be tempted not to check.

The mother in the article likely fell into this trap and ignored warning signs. It doesn't mean she's a bad mother. The guy who was arrested was 19. Maybe he was very respectful to her, had a steady job, and just played some games online during his free time. To her direct observation, she wouldn't have seen anything wrong. As he was 19, I wouldn't expect her to supervise his every action, which means that bad behavior could be easily missed.

Parents have a big impact in their kids' lives, but we can only do so much. When our children get older, we just need to hope that the lessons we've imparted are stronger than any bad influences they are likely to encounter.

Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[gnasher719]

Dear mother, smoking, drinking and having tattoos are not good traits, but they are not necessary for someone to be a nasty criminal.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Jahava]

Dear mother, smoking, drinking and having tattoos are not good traits, but they are not necessary for someone to be a nasty criminal.

Curious - what is necessarily wrong with those traits? Obviously, from the story, one can be quite devastatingly evil (causing an incident resulting in innocents at gunpoint) without them.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[PPH]

There appears to be something really wrong with this kid if he doesn't engage in normal peer behavior.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Baloroth]

Dear mother, smoking, drinking and having tattoos are not good traits, but they are not necessary for someone to be a nasty criminal.

Curious - what is necessarily wrong with those traits? Obviously, from the story, one can be quite devastatingly evil (causing an incident resulting in innocents at gunpoint) without them.

Smoking gives you cancer, drinking ruins your liver and can result in uncontrolled behavior (brawls, DUIs, etc), and tattoos basically ruin your chance at a lot of jobs. They're also all correlated somewhat with anti-social behavior (of various kinds) in general, which I think was the point the mother was relying on. "Because he lacks traits correlated with bad behavior, he must not have engaged in bad behavior." Obviously, this is faulty, but mothers often aren't rational when it comes to defending their kids.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Anonymous Coward]

There appears to be something really wrong with this kid if he doesn't engage in normal peer behavior.

Wait, are you serious? I honestly can't tell. When I was a lad I never smoked, because I hated the smell and didn't want to fuck up my lungs/get cancer. I didn't drink that much because everywhere I looked, people took drinking to mean drinking to excess and acting like fucking idiots, and I didn't want to become one of them (not that I don't drink now, just not that much). I wasn't interested in getting any tattoos because of their permanence, and the fact that they tend to look like rubbish as you age and stupid tattoos can't be removed without clear scarring.

Apparently my desire at a younger age to try to think about the consequences of my action means there was something really wrong with me. If you're being serious of course.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Altrag]

Or they'll find someone who will hire them based on their skills rather than their body art.

And then when they're 40, they'll be the ones doing the hiring. Its already not uncommon to see people with strange hair colors, tattoos, stretched earlobes, etc in various work environments, including interacting with the public. At least not where I'm from. In some places (particularly places like "trendy" clothing stores,) its getting hard to find an employee that doesn't have some form of body expression.

And that's great. As long as you're not doing something intentionally controversial like tattooing a swastika on your forehead, employers and customers alike need to stop giving a damn about anything other than the ability of the employee to do their job. The cashier with black hair who does a good job today can do just as good a job tomorrow if she dyes it pink.

Fuck those guys

[the_humeister]

This isn't a prank. This is attempted murder by cop.

Also, the cops should better assess the situation before invading people's houses at gunpoint.

Re:Fuck those guys

[BradMajors]

The root of the problem is that police might kill someone based upon an anonymous tip.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Oligonicella]

Bull. Death is a distinct possibility. The guy planning the bank robbery in which a teller gets killed is just as guilty, morally and legally, as the trigger man.

Re:Fuck those guys

[aaronb1138]

The problem is that police would respond with that level of force based upon an anonymous tip.

The problem is more the police than the swatters. The swatters are malicious actors. The police are failing to perform as good actors by following through the least bit of due diligence in these situations. Before breaking down the door, they should at least have a seasoned, senior officer knock to see if anything seems odd first.

The problem is a police force filled with the same adrenaline junky types that call in the swatting. They see an opportunity to break a door down and going running around in full CQC gear and they lose their composure. If they were actually interested in public safety, that wouldn't be their first impulse reaction to a potential emergency situation, negotiation and diffusal would be.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Akaihiryuu]

This. This should be charged *at the very minimum* as attempted murder (if noone is hurt). If the police do kill someone as a result of it, then it should be charged as premeditated murder and treated accordingly under the law.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the cops doing some time for shooting a random innocent?

Re:Fuck those guys

[Mike610544]

Before breaking down the door, they should at least have a seasoned, senior officer knock to see if anything seems odd first.

They probably could respond more reasonably, but walking up to the door and knocking might be a bit reckless. What if it's not a false alarm and there's am unstable, armed murderer on the other side?

Re:Fuck those guys

[TapeCutter]

What I do wonder is why so many SWAT raids end in violence in the US when so many other countries just dont have that sort of problem. My guess is poor training.

Other countries don't have that problem because we don't send a swat team to investigate a routine 911 call, we send a patrol car and knock on the fucking door. Sure we have swat teams, we send them in to end confirmed sieges because that is what a swat team is trained for. Also the knowledge that everyone and his dog is armed to the teeth in the US encourages the cops shoot first and make up excuses later. If you ask me the cop who shot the kid in Ferguson was a coward, he panicked because he was alone and and could not control a black kid who was bigger than him. The last people you want waving a gun around like John Wayne, are fucking cowards.

Re:Fuck those guys

[bickerdyke]

So let me get this straight. I have been kidnapped in my home by a lunatic who threatens to kill me if I try to call the police or escape. I manage to call 911 for help, and your suggestion is that the police call me back or ask permission to enter so that the kidnapper can make good on their threat to kill me.

1st That call wouldn't be anonymous.
2nd While I heard of hostage/siege situations on the news, in none of them were hostages shot at the first sight of a police officer. I know this is more anecdotal and secondhand, but even from the viewpoint of an armed madman, killing your negotiation material first thing is a very bad tactic.

it corrodes the (already strained) bond of trust between the people that need the police to protect them, the people who have to respond, and the people on the other end of that police response.

Yes. But if you have to be afraid of a swat team raiding your house and killing your 6 year old daughter because they got the wrong address (Detroit IIRC) or anonymous callers, THAT won't help rebuild that lost trust.

Re:Fuck those guys

[TheRaven64]

Step one, drive past the house - no sirens or lights, just see if there's anything odd. Step two, knock on a couple of the neighbours' doors - say that you've received a non-specific report of gunfire in the area, ask if they heard anything. Step three, from somewhere inconspicuous see if you can see in through the windows with binoculars. Step four, visit the nearest take-away and have someone in plain clothes take the food to the house pretending that they misread the number, look for signs of distress from the person answering the door. Step five, surround the house with armed officers at all exits and have someone in uniform knock on the front door and ask the person who answers to step outside - if they're refusing and showing signs of distress, then go in.

Or they could just forget all of their police training and pretend that their soldiers in enemy territory.

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[Nutria]

our cops can't trace the swatters?

Maybe our government isn't the omniscient panopticon that Snowden fetishists think it is...

Re:Honestly

[duck_rifted]

This isn't just silly childish pranks. Property can be destroyed and people killed in SWAT raids. It has happened before.

These kids know what they're doing is illegal. So, it's not going to deter them when people go to jail for it. The only thing that will stop it is if the police ask for stream URLs and actually check before kicking in doors. You know, act like reasonable people. They can even check while the SWAT team gears up, so it doesn't cost precious time in the case of an actual emergency.

You can't compensate for SWAT-happy law enforcement eager for every little chance to kick in doors by putting away the people who give them that chance. The problem has to be fixed at both ends by punishing the people who do it and requiring that our officers operate as if they've got a shred of common sense. "Oh yeah? What's the Twitch handle?" How hard is that?

The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Snotnose]

The problem is the police respond to everything with a huge over-reaction. They don't investigate, they don't use common sense, they just go in armed to the teeth ready to shoot anything that either moves or doesn't move fast enough and the hell with the consequences, as long as the consequences fall on the target, not the cops.

How the hell did we get such a militarized police force anyway?

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[sydbarrett74]

How the hell did we get such a militarized police force anyway?

Here's your answer.

Re:Tracking

[Anonymous Coward]

How about they not take anonymous calls like that so seriously?
I can only imagine what would happen if they took every anonymous post on the internet seriously.

Re:He's an Angel

[Anonymous Coward]

While arguments can be made for and against unconditional love, more often than not it's helped people get back on their feet after they do really stupid things.

[Citation needed]

Re:Honestly

[dafoomie]

What you are suggesting the police should do is simply not practical. Who would they ask for a stream url? Do you want everyone running a stream to register with the local police? Do you want police to begin doubting every report or threat of imminent violence, endangering everyone who legitimately needs help?

When you get a call reporting an active shooter followed by gunshots you don't check twitch, you go. You bring the amount of force necessary to deal with what may be occurring but you use the minimum amount of force necessary to take control of the situation. That no one has died yet as a result of swatting suggests that they're largely doing their jobs. Whether or not they're responding to every situation, real or fictitious with excessive force is an entirely separate issue.

Jail IS a deterrent as these people have no expectation they will be caught and believe sentences would be light anyway. If they can become more proficient at finding these people, and sentences become more severe, it will absolutely reduce the number of incidents.

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[misexistentialist]

Or maybe the panopticon wasn't constructed for our benefit. Random SWAT raids are good training and also pacify the population. Probably even polls well

Re:Double Standard?

[brantondaveperson]

The cops showing up at your "target's" door because you rang the cops and claimed they were waving a gun around, or whatever, is not an "indirect" result of your statement.

It's a direct, predictable, and intended result. This is why the appropriate punishment would be attempted murder.

That the police in the US are a dangerous force that may be abused in this manner is an entirely orthogonal issue.

What's missing from this story?

[TapeCutter]

Why do Americans automatically accept that kicking the door down and holding everyone at gunpoint is a reasonable response to an anonymous 911 call?

Re:What's missing from this story?

[Altrag]

Because the PR hit for overreacting to a "threat" is far lower than the PR hit for failing to react to one (and even that's better than silently snuffing out a threat -- bad PR is better than no PR.)

Actually protecting the public isn't all that much of a concern. And for the most part, the public likes it that way because feeling safe is more immediately obvious than being safe. The former is defined by action (the police caught some bad guys!) whereas the latter is defined by inaction (nothing terrible happened to me today..)

Read up on security theater. I'm not sure that this would technically fall into that category, but its the same mentality nonetheless.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[Noah Haders]

Why do Americans automatically accept that kicking the door down and holding everyone at gunpoint is a reasonable response to an anonymous 911 call?

Yes. This is the question that no one asks. Why we tolerate a culture in which police are empowered to kick in doors all the time.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[tburkhol]

If you were a cop and you were sent to an address in response to a 911 call claiming that there was someone at that address with a dangerous weapon, would you walk up to the door and knock politely?

Why not talk to them via bullhorn or phone without even approaching the house? It's going to take at least 15 minutes to assemble and deploy a SWAT team - don't you think any killing the guy has started will be done by then?

If you start with negotiation, you have at least some chance to let the adrenalin run out, get people thinking rationally about consequences, let the first pangs of guilt emerge. If you start with shocking and overwhelming force, you pretty much guarantee someone's going to get hurt. Police are supposed to be trained to deescalate situations. They may carry tools required to respond to an escalation, but they're supposed to be distinguishable from a lynch mob by their ability to remain calm and bring about peaceful resolutions. Failure of this training results in shooting of unarmed crazy people.

Re:Tracking

[kindbud]

I feel strongly that there is a response in between ignoring anonymous calls, and roaring to the scene in full-on SWAT mode, busting down the door and giving everyone who is unlucky enough to be inside the worst day of their lives.

Re:Tracking

[ldobehardcore]

That happy middle is called due diligence via police work. You don't send a swat team to do a detective's work, and that's exactly what more and more PDs are doing every day. It's a disgusting lack of intellectual effort on the part of the PDs, and exposes them for what they are: Soldier wannabes who are too cowardly to actually enlist.

Re:Tracking

[CanHasDIY]

Yea, that's called an occupational hazard, not an excuse to not do your fucking job. Jesus, if underwater welders and fishermen (wo have far, far more life-threatening jobs than any LEO) were as whiny and pussified as cops, we'd have no oil or food.

Of course, if the detectives use their brains they can decrease their personal risk while still doing what they're paid to do. Of course that implies hiring people who actually have functioning brains... something many departments apparently have a policy against.