Slashdot Mirror


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.

23 of 569 comments (clear)

  1. Idiot Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.

    1. Re: Idiot Parents by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re: Idiot Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Idiot Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "He never even whacks off. Really!"

    4. Re: Idiot Parents by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    5. Re: Idiot Parents by zennyboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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)...

    6. Re: Idiot Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re: Idiot Parents by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  2. Fuck those guys by the_humeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Fuck those guys by BradMajors · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Fuck those guys by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Informative

      There been reports of them killing people when they got the wrong address too. Nothing has happened that I know of about this either so I am not too confident anything would be making them think twice on a tip.

    3. Re:Fuck those guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    4. Re:Fuck those guys by Mike610544 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      ... also, I can kill you with my brain.
    5. Re:Fuck those guys by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Fuck those guys by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  4. Re:"smoking, drinking, or tattoos"? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos

    WTF? What do smoking, drinking, and tattoos have to do with calling the freakin' SWAT in on some poor gamer? Is this some correlation I had previous not heard about?

    SWAT: Smokes Whiskey and Tattoos

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  5. Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Here's your answer.

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  6. Re:He's an Angel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So was Lucifer.

  7. Re:Tracking by kindbud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  8. Re:What's missing from this story? by Altrag · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Tracking by ldobehardcore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
  10. Re:What's missing from this story? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.