Slashdot Mirror


Two More 'SWAT' Calls in California -- One Involving a 12-Year-Old Gamer (ktla.com)

In January an online gamer in California was arrested after at leat 20 fake emergency calls to police, one leading to a fatal shooting in Kansas. But this week in California there's been at least two more fake calls:
  • A 12-year-old gamer heard a knock at his door Sunday -- which turned out to be "teams of Los Angeles police officers and other rescue personnel who believed two people had just hung themselves." The Los Angeles Police Department "said there's no way to initially discern swatting calls from actually emergencies, so they handle every scenario as if someone's life is in danger," according to the Los Angeles Times. The seventh-grader described it as "the most terrifying thing in my life."
  • 36-year-old David Pearce has been arrested for falsely reporting an emergency at a Beverly Hills hotel involving "men with guns" holding him hostage. A local police captain later said that the people in the room had not made the call and in fact might have been asleep through much of the emergency. The Los Angeles Times reports that there's roughly 400 'SWATting' cases each year, according to FBI estimates, adding that "Some experts have said police agencies need to take the phenomenon more seriously and provide formal training to dispatchers and others to better recognize hoax callers."

Meanwhile, in the wake of a fatal shooting in Wichita, Kansas lawmakers have passed a new bipartisan bill increasing the penalties for SWAT calls. If a fake call results in a fatality -- and the caller intentionally masks their identity -- it's the equivalent of second-degree murder. "The caller must be held accountable," one lawmaker told the Topeka Capital-Journal.


178 comments

  1. Not Swatting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Police don't dispatch SWAT to suicide calls, and cops don't rush in guns blazing on those types of reports.

    Still a dick move, but not Swatting.

    1. Re:Not Swatting by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Stop trying to be pedantic. The goal was still cause problems for the victim by having the police show up their home, which is what swatting refers to, not your narrowly defined "it's only swatting if the police actually send a SWAT team."

    2. Re:Not Swatting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an important difference. One is a nuisance and waste of police resources, the other is attempted murder.

  2. Really "no way to discern"? by Entrope · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If there is really no way for a 911 dispatcher to tell that a call is arriving from somewhere outside the local area through a commercial VoIP service, that is a shameful state of affairs that needs to be addressed. Probably all SWATing hoaxes involve that kind of proxy to reach the target dispatch, and probably vanishingly few legitimate emergency calls use those services.

    If a dispatcher sees a VoIP call that indicates a high risk of violence or strongly points to heavily armed response, that should be good grounds to watch out for a hoax.

    1. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last thing I'd want while talking to a 911 dispatcher is for them to be allowed to have doubt in my story.

    2. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right, because no legitimate calls would ever come in over VoIP. Brilliant.

    3. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...that should be good grounds to watch out for a hoax.

      The fact that anything could be a hoax is good grounds to watch out for a hoax.

      But we don't need "good grounds" for the police to be careful when deciding to shoot at people.

    4. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Informative

      The calls are often to a NON-EMERGENCY number, since 911 would route it to the SWAT'ter's local 911 service center. Calling a non-emergency number about a life-and-death issue should be a big clue. Apparently, that's what happened in the SWAT'ting that caused a death recently.

    5. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 2

      Last thing I'd want while talking to a 911 dispatcher is for them to be allowed to have doubt in my story.

      Last thing I'd want is a bunch of people wrongfully shot dead because doubt is too scary for some other people who might have a story that "requires" a paramilitary strike.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    6. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Plenty of services use VoIP. If you have "digital telephone" with your cable or dsl provider, you have VoIP. If you have true 4G/5G (Europe and Japan only, not the US 2.5G that is sold as 4G) your calls are probably packet based.

      Many people use Vonage or a number of other VoIP providers, anytime you need a little box to talk to your POTS or if your phone line goes dead during a power outage, you have VoIP.

      The nice thing about VoIP is that you don't need to have a physical line, any SIP phone can talk to any SIP gateway, given 911 is supposed to be free of charge and foolproof you don't even need to have an active account to call it.

      I have about a dozen old cell phones in my basement from friends, family and "recycling" that can all call 911 and that aren't tied at all to myself other than location.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    7. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Ma Bell has allowed phone number spoofing for decades. They make money on all of those telemarketers, you know.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    8. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are real hindrances to providing exact location of a 911 caller. One of them is the demise of the effective E911 system for cell phones, that used to be provided by a company called TruePositions. It used to work: the FCC changed the requirements, major providers backed out of contracts and dropped the system, and it's almost gone with no reliable replacement. See page 25 of this document:

      * https://books.google.com/books...

      Voice over IP is its own separate interface and data access problem. Being able to backtrace the call requires mating almost every emergency dispatcher's call center with every VOIP provider. Between Skype, Google Calls, local wife voice access to roaming portable devices for systems like Comcast that allow you to use neighbor's Comcast wife as a registered customer, etc., etc., it turns into a tremendous data integration collection and reporting issue. And the data needed for that kind of backtracing is incredibly prone to abuse, by individuals and by government. We may as well give a copy of all your phone records to every local bureaucrat at every level of government.

    9. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by PPH · · Score: 1

      They make money on all of those telemarketers, you know.

      Yeah. But how? They obviously can track and bill all these telemarketing calls. Or they wouldn't let them through. But it seems that they have given law enforcement the second-tier interface to their tracking/billing system.

      This could easily be solved with a few subpoenas and a few telco execs spending some time in prison for contempt of court and lying to law enforcement officials (essentially what an intentionally broken interface is doing).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Entrope · · Score: 2

      Sure, any call to the police could be a hoax. The issue is that this kind of hoax is both dangerous and somewhat frequent, so it is worth considering how to identify such hoaxes quickly.

    11. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Entrope · · Score: 1

      If someone makes an emergency report to a non-emergency number, that would be another good indicator.

      My understanding was that SWAT hoaxers typically use (somewhat shady) VoIP services because VoIP effectively hides both their identity and their actual location, so that they could call 911 and make it appear as if they were really at the location they want to be SWATted.

    12. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last thing I'd want is to be tortured and killed because the dispatcher thought it was a fraud.

    13. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Entrope · · Score: 1

      That is the kind of thing I was trying to address with my statement about calls from "outside the local area through a commercial VoIP service". Mobile phone companies are probably sufficiently careful with e911 to be trusted. So are incumbent and competitive local carriers.

      How does a 911 call work with SIP? Exactly which services relay from SIP to the emergency dispatch service? That's the point where I think there needs to be sufficient authentication of the originator, and where their location should be made reasonably clear.

      See, if someone calls 911 from a cell phone in your basement, it should not matter who they claim to be. The emergency response should head towards your basement, because that is where the call was made from. If someone in your basement calls 911 using a services that falsely says the caller is a thousand miles away, that is the problem that should be attacked.

    14. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's my fetish!

    15. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by geekmux · · Score: 2

      If there is really no way for a 911 dispatcher to tell that a call is arriving from somewhere outside the local area through a commercial VoIP service, that is a shameful state of affairs that needs to be addressed. Probably all SWATing hoaxes involve that kind of proxy to reach the target dispatch, and probably vanishingly few legitimate emergency calls use those services.

      If a dispatcher sees a VoIP call that indicates a high risk of violence or strongly points to heavily armed response, that should be good grounds to watch out for a hoax.

      The problem with your "easy" fix is when you're wrong, and someone dies as a result.

      With the popularity of cloud-based phone services, WiFi calling, and the number of people who have no "home" phone, it's hard to use VoIP as a delineation point.

    16. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Entrope · · Score: 1

      SWATing would be a lot less of a problem if the problem was restricted to "we can only tell roughly what area of a cell sector this call was made from". It means that hoaxes could only be perpetrated from the target's neighborhood, and that the mobile operator could record the calling phone's identity (IMEI) and perhaps the subscriber (from the SIM's IMSI, if the caller left a SIM in the phone -- and if they didn't, that would be another pointer to a hoax). Between those identifiers and cell site location records, it would be pretty easy to track and identify the hoaxer.

    17. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Last thing I'd want while talking to a 911 dispatcher is for them to be allowed to have doubt in my story.

      Last thing I'd want is a bunch of people wrongfully shot dead because doubt is too scary for some other people who might have a story that "requires" a paramilitary strike.

      That takes proper training to assess a threat, and has little to do with the problem of fake calls. You either have trigger-happy idiots behind an armed response, or you do not.

      This is a two-fold problem. Make no mistake that change needs to happen on BOTH sides.

    18. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Guess what: People could die in response to any 911 call. The point is to reduce how often people unjustly or preventably die.

      I am not proposing that 911 automatically treat any VoIP call as a hoax, or that they not respond if a VoIP call is placed using a shady service that has been known to falsify caller locations. I am only pointing out that many (most?) SWATing incidents actually do have a fact pattern that sets them apart, even a priori, from legitimate calls; that emergency dispatchers should have the tools to detect that fact pattern; and that responders could use the presence of that fact pattern to dial back their response rather than go in with guns blazing.

    19. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      If you are calling from the local area, the cops should be aware of that. If you are intentionally trying to be anonymous then cops should also be aware of that. Not all anonymous tips are bad but they should be approached with caution. Even something as simple as letting the SWAT team know that the tip might not be good should help them case the place properly before busting down a door.

    20. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Exact location is difficult unless the phone itself provides GPS for the 911 call (and really, when a cell phone calls 911, it should even if the user turns GPS off in general), but it shouldn't be that difficult technically to provide at least some locality information, such as which tower handled the call to sanity check emergency calls. In the case of cable VOIP services, the modem's MAC can be used to somewhat localize the call.

    21. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      In Germany basically all new phone lines are VoiP.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    22. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last thing I'd want is to be tortured and killed because the dispatcher thought it was a fraud.

      If you were really concerned, you'd own some weapons and get professional training so you knew how to use the weapons.

      Why ?

      Because when seconds count, the police are only MINUTES AWAY.

    23. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Entrope · · Score: 1

      In Germany are basically all new phone lines using weird providers that allow their customers to lie about their address, and then the provider passes that false address for emergency calls?

      If so, then my proposed hoax detection might not work well in Germany, but I suspect that Germans are not so foolish as to allow companies with significant market share to behave like that.

    24. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      If fewer than 400 calls a year come in over an easily anonymous VoIP service and involve high risk situations things are better than the current state.

      Especially if you add in the human element, the call is simply flagged as at risk of being a swatting, giving the human one more thing to evaluate.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    25. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      That takes proper training to assess a threat, and has little to do with the problem of fake calls. You either have trigger-happy idiots behind an armed response, or you do not.

      This is a two-fold problem. Make no mistake that change needs to happen on BOTH sides.

      The root of the problem is there are far, far too many laws and regulations, many related to the "War On (some) Drugs". Having so many laws and regulations means you need a large number of jackboots to enforce them. Proper training is too expensive and time consuming for maintaining such a large standing force, so standards and training are minimal. It also means that internal discipline and accountability for mistakes take a back seat to maintaining sufficient numbers of boots on the street.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    26. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. But how? They obviously can track and bill all these telemarketing calls. Or they wouldn't let them through.

      That's not how it works. The connecting phone company pays the receiver's phone company a small termination fee. The caller pays the connecting phone company, and how much is outside the receiver's phone company's control or knowledge.

    27. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by nnull · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And how would you tell? Recently I'm getting phone calls with spoofed called ids, when you call them back, a real person answers that is confused about what's going on. The phone companies bare a large responsibility for allowing this, since they claimed this would never happen since the inception of caller Id.

    28. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      VoiP does not imply lying about your address.
      Actually you can pinpoint one down to his floor in a flat ...

      And in most european countries, ordinary emergency calls have no address atached anyway, people calling an emergency service are supposed to know where thay are.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    29. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Lying to law enforcement is not illegal, yet. Not even in your fucked up legal system.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    30. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The calls are often to a NON-EMERGENCY number

      [Citation Required] The problem is that there are many services that don't route your call source, and even more where that call source has nothing to do with your current location. Welcome to the world of VoIP.

    31. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your understanding is flawed and incomplete.

      These calls hinge on having a call routed such that it ends up with an emergency responder of some sort, one responsible for the area where the SWAT team or other responders are to end up.

      One way is to use a VoIP service that'll route the call where you want, but it doesn't need to be shady: There's supposed to be an address on file for 911 use. That is, it looks at the address on file for the number to know which 911 service to route to. Get (register, steal, steal and change, whatever) an account with a suitable address on file and you can get the show on the road.

      But there are other ways, of course. There are services that let you inject just about anything you like through their SS7 connection with the phone networks. Call centres often make use of such tricks. Or you could find an open or breachable PABX to call in to then call out from. Or some other trick.

    32. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is really no way for a 911 dispatcher to tell that a call is arriving from somewhere outside the local area through a commercial VoIP service, that is a shameful state of affairs that needs to be addressed. Probably all SWATing hoaxes involve that kind of proxy to reach the target dispatch, and probably vanishingly few legitimate emergency calls use those services.

      If a dispatcher sees a VoIP call that indicates a high risk of violence or strongly points to heavily armed response, that should be good grounds to watch out for a hoax.

      First responders are in a lose-lose situation in American society. They could respond more moderately and thoughtfully to VOIP calls, potentially SWAT hoaxes, and even legitimate 911 calls, but American society crucifies its emergency services when they "didn't do everything they could have". This leads to an escalating trend where we have ridiculously militarized police responses to prank calls and other phenomena such as laws in my state where every 911 call has to be responded to by the police accompanied by both an ambulance and a fire truck.

    33. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Okay, then catch up with the story and let us know when you have a clue.

    34. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Really, I would imagine that lying to a law enforcement officer would be obstruction of a police investigation in most jurisdictions. Way safer to say nothing than lie. Though saying nothing is the best policy regardless.

    35. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      and somewhat frequent

      Really? Two examples in two months in a population of almost 40 million people is "somewhat frequent"???

      Assuming that the two examples mentioned were representative, that would imply that your chance of being the victim of a swatting in your lifetime are on the order of 0.001%. Hardly "somewhat frequent"....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    36. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      and the number of people who have no "home" phone

      This. Haven't had a "home phone" for at least a decade. Ditto siblings. I don't think my parents do either, but I could be mistaken there - Dad is old-fashioned....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    37. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell does increasing the fines do? Kids do this thinking there is no consequences, they will do this after they increase the fine thinking there is no consequences.

      The only way to solve the problem is to have a higher standard of evidence that a particular situation requires a SWAT team present.

    38. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The root of the problem is there are far, far too many laws and regulations, many related to the "War On (some) Drugs". Having so many laws and regulations means you need a large number of jackboots to enforce them.

      Hmm, sounds a little Randian. SWAT teams aren't generally used for possible zoning or pollution violations, if that's what you were going for.

    39. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by mtmra70 · · Score: 1

      Since when? I have certain phones at my work I mask behind a xxx555xxx number to prevent robo calls into the phone. Any PSTN call made from this phone shows the receiving end a "555" number, which is not legitimate. This allows me to make out going phone calls from an e164 formatted number, but to not allow anyone on the outside to call back in.

    40. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      In the case of cable VOIP services, the modem's MAC can be used to somewhat localize the call.

      That would help for calls made via a ISP-provided VoIP service (AT&T uVerse, etc.) , but wouldn't do anything for other VoIP providers like Vonage where the packets could be sourced from any network in the world.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    41. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since when?

      About the past two years in my case. I get probably 3 or 4 calls a days from robocallers that use fake local numbers, usually the same prefix as my phone.
      I had to set my phone to only ring if the number is in my contact list, otherwise it would be going off constantly and I'd be discussing "automobile repair insurance" and talking to the "Visa / Mastercard fraud prevention center".
      If this isn't happening to you yet then rest assured it will eventually. I too had heard about this and assumed it was something those people must have done to end up on a list. Well, now I'm getting these calls everyday.

    42. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who has professional training and their own weapons should still *call the cops first*.

      If there's a medical emergency, even a doctor should *call the ambulance*.

      If a house is on fire, a bystander firefighter should first *call the fire department*.

      This isn't an action movie. If you go it alone, you do not have sufficient professional training. Always go into these things with overwhelming force. Being a lone wolf hero is stupidity.

    43. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's why I said cable VoIP services rather than VoIP services in general.

    44. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not call the number back to verify? If someone answers with no idea what's going on, that should be a clue.

    45. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Martha Stewart

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    46. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by PPH · · Score: 1

      So how does my phone company know to bill me $5.99 per minute for calling that "Hot and Sweaty Sex" 1-900 number? And how does the sex service know who to go after if the money isn't paid? I assume that phone companies have some method of blocking or flagging VoIP number spoofing from entering their system so as not to be on the hook for an hour of heavy breathing owed to the phone sex service.

      In the case of a VoIP call to 9-1-1, I know I had to register my IP address with my home location to get emergency services to show up. So it would be a simple matter of the phone company spotting the incoming IP call and, upon not finding it in it's IP to home address map, provide a flag to law enforcement that this call came from some mystery IP address. Go ahead and respond to the call, but the source might be fake. In addition, IP geo-location can give some idea that the VoIP call came from a location far from the spoofed PSTN number (California instead of Kansas).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    47. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you work at being a dipshit pedant, or does it come naturally?

    48. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's cool because?

      If you call my house and leave my daughter a creepy message telling her how you like looking at her through the window at night while she's a sleep, I for damn well sure want to know where it came from. And I want you to get the wrong end of my knowing.

      Doesn't matter whether it's from a place of work or not. Creeps can dial from anywhere. It should be similar to anti-spam laws, as it costs me money to receive the call. The only reason this is so slow to get dealt with is because the phone companies have their damn fingers in the cookie jar.

    49. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are FCC regulations for 911 that apply to SIP too.
      There is an extra fee if you require the service, ie: https://www.callcentric.com/faq/23

    50. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not quite that severe, but as a Wichita native, I can relate that our police are far too militant. Its understood that you're far more likely to be shot by a cop than a criminal. We don't make eye contact, we don't talk to them, they are to be avoided at all costs. Btw, anyone see this other police shooting that happened a few days after the SWATting murder?

    51. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, link failure. This police shooting.

    52. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.kwch.com/content/news/Bullet-fragment-from-WPD-officers-gun-injures-9-year-old--467549153.html

    53. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by javaman235 · · Score: 1

      Lying to law enforcement has always been illegal:
      http://blogs.findlaw.com/blott...
      Did you not notice headlines about Gates in court for lying to FBI?
      https://www.pressherald.com/20...

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    54. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chance of being a victim or chance of being dead? It kinda matters.

    55. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Alypius · · Score: 1

      General Flynn says hi.

    56. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Silly troll - in Soviet America, *everything* is illegal.

    57. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is really no way for a 911 dispatcher to tell that a call is...

      If you didn't have cops acting like Rambo-wannabes it wouldn't be an issue. In other developed countries cops are taught that not all problems are solved by shooting anyone you see on site. When is the USA going to catch up?

    58. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      If there is really no way for a 911 dispatcher to tell that a call is arriving from somewhere outside the local area through a commercial VoIP service, that is a shameful state of affairs that needs to be addressed. Probably all SWATing hoaxes involve that kind of proxy to reach the target dispatch, and probably vanishingly few legitimate emergency calls use those services.

      If a dispatcher sees a VoIP call that indicates a high risk of violence or strongly points to heavily armed response, that should be good grounds to watch out for a hoax.

      Many problems.

      First, there are lots of VoIP providers out there. The big ones like Vonage and the ilk will route a 911 call to the right 911 emergency call center, within limitations (it's VoIP, so your call can come from anywhere).

      Second, many smaller VoIP providers route 911 to some non-emergency number because they could not get direct emergency call center access numbers.

      Third, your location is not known. At best, you can do an geographic IP lookup and get an approximate area to determine if the person is "in the area", but we all know how easy IP addresses are to fake (aka VPN services).

      Fourth, VoIP is a legitimate service. 911 calls come from VoIP services all the time because people have replaced their home phone service with VoIP calls. So no, an emergency call from a VoIP service is not grounds for saying a call is fake - because there is way more real VoIP 911 emergencies than swatting calls.

      FIfth, we considered denying 911 service to VoIP, but it was determined it would be a hassle to those who really did need it. The reason we considered denying it was everyone had a cellphone, and 911 is geo-located for that - the cell towers provide approximate location for you, and since E911 is mandatory, 911 operators can use your phone's GPS to get a more precise location. However, it was determined that even in an emergency, a phone should be able to dial 911, even if it's VoIP.

      That's the real problem. There was even talk of installing GPS chips inside of VoIP terminals, but that eliminates a major advantage of VoIP - soft phones and such. While a lot of devices for VoIP do have location services capability (including many PCs), it's not as accurate and is trivially fooled.

      One solution might be for the VoIP provider to provide two pieces of information to 911 - their IP location AND their billing address data - after all, VoIP services need to be paid for somehow, and knowing who is paying for the service might help in determining if it's fake or not. Of course, for those who move and thus have a billing address in their old location while they set up their new location, this may prove problematic.

      And I still maintain, we should treat fake calls as a get-out-of-jail-free card for the cops. Ultimate liability will fall from the cop to the actual perpetrator, so if the cop shoots someone, the cop gets lucky - any damages, liability, sentences, monetary compensation, etc, ultimately get paid for by the caller. And yes, I say this because you don't know it's fake until after, so the cop will go through the usual process, and only find out at the end that instead of ending his career, he got one magical mulligan save. If he repeats his behavior, he may not be so lucky next time (because how often is it fake?).

      Call it the once-in-a-lifetime event. IF you're a bad cop, it won't help you. But if you're an otherwise upstanding citizen and a misunderstanding happens, it's the ultimate. (And people seem to think you have all the time in the world - you don't. You have 3 seconds to figure out if the guy will shoot you from when the door opens, and 2 of them are spent identifying yourself and demanding he get down. If the home owner hesitates, misunderstands, or just wants to know what is going on, well, you have to decide - is it really a threat and he'll pull out his gun and shoot, or is it just a confused person wondering why he's surrounded by cops?).

    59. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some countries have laws specifying that any phone system (voip, cell, landline, whatever) that connects to the public phone system MUST provide location data. Precisely to avoid fake calls.

      Sometime in the 90's, my then girlfriend called me from another town. Apparently, the neighbour was hosting a skinhead party and it was gettting out of hand. She wanted me to call the police for her. I did, and the first thing they asked was how I could know about trouble at that address, being in another town and all. I could of course explain this.

      They don't want time wasted by crank calls to emergency services. It is the same with commercial services - if I order 50 pizzas for some other location, they will ask a lot of questions.

    60. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > I am only pointing out that many (most?) SWATing incidents actually do
      > have a fact pattern that sets them apart, even a priori, from legitimate
      > calls; that emergency dispatchers should have the tools to detect that
      > fact pattern; and that responders could use the presence of that fact
      > pattern to dial back their response rather than go in with guns blazing.

      This will merely result in something similar to the spamblocking wars. As filters discovered spam patterns versus "real mail" patterns, the spammers upped their game and used more convincing "real mail" patterns. Sociopaths make the best (i.e. most convincing liars). And anybody who'd deliberately SWAT an innocent victim is a priori likely a sociopath. I'm sure there's a "how ro do a convincing fake SWAT call" FAQ floating around somewhere on the dark web.

      The real solution is to remove the incentive for SWATting. I.e. change SWAT responses so that they're not a threat to the lives of innocent people.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    61. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It helps to read the articles of the links you posted.

      The first one, http://blogs.findlaw.com/blott...
      Has nothing to do with "lying" but giving wrong statements to authorities.

      If a police officer asked me where I was at 20:00, and I say in a pub, while I actually was in a red light district: that is a lie. And that is completely legal.

      Filing a "wrong accussion" is technically a lie too, but first of all it is a "wrong accussion", and this is covered by law, while a simple "lie" is not.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    62. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, sounds a little Randian. SWAT teams aren't generally used for possible zoning or pollution violations, if that's what you were going for.

      Wanna bet on that?

    63. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you calling people and preventing them from returng your call?

      Up to some scamming of old people then?

      I seriously doubt you have a good business reason for that.

    64. Re: Really "no way to discern"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lying and wrong statements are the same thing, and will get you in trouble the same way. If you dont want to answer a questions, you dont answer it, not lie. Thats bound to get you in more trouble, and once they figure out its a lie, they are going to be gunning for you.

    65. Re:Really "no way to discern"? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      In my area non-emergency numbers are forwarded to 911 if you call after normal business hours. Want to call in a noise complaint, you're going to end up talking to a 911 operator.

  3. Good job by Kohath · · Score: 4, Funny

    Congrats to the LA police for not killing any innocent people when responding to those incidents. Keep it up.

    1. Re:Good job by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Congrats to the LA police for not killing any innocent people when responding to those incidents."

      As if the LA police could actually hit someone. Remember Christopher Dorner? Remember that blue truck they shot up with two women inside, thinking he was in that truck? 40 something rounds and ZERO fatalities?

      The LA police are so shitty with their guns, that they had to beat Rodney King point blank - they know they're too fucking incompetent to even hit the broadside of a barn with a firearm.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the LA police

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
      "Don't pursue the [getaway vehicle]. We have nothing that can stop them."

    3. Re:Good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why were cops even sent to an apparent suicide through hanging?

    4. Re:Good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel sorry for the guy that the cops let bleed to death. Fuck the police.

  4. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would think they would at this point be privy to what is going on with the SWAT calls by now. But oh no. That's not how it works. The police get the latest and greatest machine guns, tanks, tactical outfits, and all the chicks, and they have ZERO accountability for being the soldiers on the streets.

  5. Roll up for the Mystery Tour by louden+obscure · · Score: 1

    The world is going to hell in a handbasket and I'm unsure what to put in my carryon bag.
           

    --
    Serenity now, insanity later.
    1. Re:Roll up for the Mystery Tour by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The world is going to hell in a handbasket and I'm unsure what to put in my carryon bag.

      There's an extra fee for carry-on luggage.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  6. Attempted murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Anything that elicits an armed SWAT response should be considered an attempt to kill the SWATee.
    There is no other reason you'd send an armed response team into a situation that split second decisions mean more people may die.

    Once swaters start publicly getting 20+ years for single swat attempts it'll put off a fuckton of others.

    1. Re:Attempted murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Locking up people that use guns to kill has dramatically reduced the number of mass-shootings. Or not.

    2. Re:Attempted murder by Entrope · · Score: 1

      To stop people from using these dangerous phones to SWAT other people, we must ban assault phones. Any phone with a collapsible antenna, removable battery, customizable software, screen visibility suppressor, pistol grip or bayonet mount is FAR too dangerous to allow in civilian hands.

      Write your Congressperson today to tell them you support the Assault Phone Ban!

    3. Re:Attempted murder by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      Locking up people that use guns to kill has dramatically reduced the number of mass-shootings. Or not.

      Most people that commit such crimes don't survive the process. The few that do are generally crazy, or completely baked on some hateful ideology. And since there are very, very few such incidents, your willingness to make assertions about it all is pretty pointless. Murders of all kinds have been going steadily down for decades. They're nearly half what they were in, say, the late 1980's. And the numbers of deaths caused by people using rifles or shotguns or any sort of long gun are a pale shadow of the number of people who are beaten or stabbed to death. The number of "mass shootings" is rare in the way that tornado deaths are. And yes, properly enforcing laws, not letting people slip through the background check process, and prosecuting/incarcerating known criminals would indeed greatly reduce mass shootings - because "mass shootings" (as reported by law enforcement and then used in agenda-driven discussions in the media) include things like three drug dealers on a street corner being lightly injured by flying bits of masonry when another gang banger drives by and takes a shot at them and misses.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Attempted murder by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Next you'll be telling me that I can't trust (warning: autoplay video) Michael Bloomberg's pet anti-gun group when it comes to statistics about how often school shootings occur!

    5. Re:Attempted murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually all research shows is not drastic penalties but unavoidable consequences are better at preventing crime. This is not to say that some drastic penalties may be necessary. Yet mandatory minimum sentences as you suggest are not good at preventing anything.

    6. Re:Attempted murder by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Yep, no 2nd degree stuff, this is the same as murder for hire (on the cheap). Should have the same penalties. There is malice aforethought, obviously. Just because you tried to hire a low competence hitman on the cheap shouldn't be extenuating.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    7. Re:Attempted murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charge the 12 year old as an adult. Kid needs to goes to Juvie until he's 18.

    8. Re: Attempted murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah but itâ(TM)s the people doing the swatting, not the phones. Better to just not allow any legislation whatsoever. Itâ(TM)s too soon to talk about it anyways, our hopes and prayers are with the swattees.

    9. Re: Attempted murder by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Feed the Gulag!

  7. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I do think this has gone too far. The cops and 911 operator should be EXECUTED for causing needless deaths.

  8. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by SUCK+MY+BALLS!!! · · Score: 2

    If there is really no way for a 911 dispatcher to tell that a call is arriving from somewhere outside the local area through a commercial VoIP service, that is a shameful state of affairs that needs to be addressed. Probably all SWATing hoaxes involve that kind of proxy to reach the target dispatch, and probably vanishingly few legitimate emergency calls use those services.

    If a dispatcher sees a VoIP call that indicates a high risk of violence or strongly points to heavily armed response, that should be good grounds to watch out for a hoax.

  9. Not good enough by SilverBlade2k · · Score: 1

    Maybe charge the person who made the fake SWAT call with attempted murder.

    A few horror stories about people going to prison, or facing massive financial penalties because of a video game will make people stop.

    1. Re:Not good enough by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Charging them isn't enough. it needs, as you suggest, both convictions and prison time, both highly publicized, to have any real effect. Stupid people need to learn that making fake SWAT calls will, in every case, lead to hard time in a maximum security facility and a ruined life.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re: Not good enough by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      That's a tyrannically disproportionate response to the crime.

    3. Re: Not good enough by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Really? You think hard time and a ruined life is too much of a punishment for what could easily be considered to be attempted murder? What do you consider appropriate? Community service?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re: Not good enough by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Stop licking those jackboots. If a murder occurred, the SWAT thug would be the murderer.

      Yes community service sounds reasonable for a dumb phone prank.

    5. Re: Not good enough by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Wake up and smell the cordite! Nobody's saying that the cops aren't responsible for their actions. I'm saying that calling out the SWAT team isn't a dumb phone prank when you know in advance that somebody might get killed, and if a few stupid fools get thrown in the slammer for it, the number of prank calls will go down. Way, way down.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    6. Re: Not good enough by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Nah. It won't do jack to the number of prank calls. And the number of SWAT murders will continue to rise until civil society gets enough backbone to eject these occupying armies from our cities.

      All draconian punishments will do is feed more lives into the Gulag meat grinder.

    7. Re: Not good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to disagree.

      Both the SWAT thug and the phone punk need to go to prison.

      Put them in the same cell for extra laughs.

  10. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't all landlines VoIP now though?

  11. Wasting Police time by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    In the UK we have an offence of wasting Police time, it is minor offence, dealt with by fixed penalty fine. Then our cops down storm houses with guns. What choice are American's going to make?

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-g...

    1. Re:Wasting Police time by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      No in England and Wales you have a system. Here in Scotland we have a completely different legal system and any references to the Crown Prosecution Service are an immediate flag to that fact. There is no such thing as a UK legal system.

  12. What the? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " it's the equivalent of second-degree murder. "The caller must be held accountable," one lawmaker told the Topeka Capital-Journal."

    We need to hold the person that committed actual first-degree murder responsible first. That person responded very poorly to a non-threat.

  13. Easy Solution by deesine · · Score: 1

    Take away qualified immunity and watch the problem go away.

    --
    damaged by dogma
  14. Stupid; the POLICE are responsible for a shooting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You should NOT rely on data from UNCONFIRMED and potentially unreliable sources to initiate violence against another human being. This is a training issue- not an issue with someone placing a fake 911 call. What this does is it misplaces blame and diverts responsibility for shooting someone to that other than the shooter. The person who placed the fake call should be held responsible for abusing resources- not a murder committed by a poorly trained or over-reactive officer. But no, we can't ever hold the people with guns responsible for there own poor decisions, officers in blue can't ever make mistakes. They're our "heroes". The sad fact is government kidnaps and murders more people every year than all the serial murders and terrorists combined. The problem isn't prank calls or terrorism. It's poor training and an excessive number of police and military personal.

  15. Hold parents accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad parenting equals bad kids.

  16. Post-mortem courtesy by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    A 12-year-old gamer heard a knock at his door Sunday -- which turned out to be "teams of Los Angeles police officers and other rescue personnel who believed two people had just hung themselves." The Los Angeles Police Department "said there's no way to initially discern swatting calls from actually emergencies, so they handle every scenario as if someone's life is in danger,"

    And they didn't suspect something was amiss when someone answered the door?

    1. Re:Post-mortem courtesy by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And they didn't suspect something was amiss when someone answered the door?
      If I have a hang over, I don't open doors ... oh, that was not what you meant?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  17. Threat Levels and AI and spam filtering by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    1) Call tracing and source profiling -- perfect for a simple algorithm or AI to do, just as we do for email servers, black lists etc. Obviously, no black list but a bad source impacts confidence levels.

    2) Spam-like filtering. Threat levels or confidence ranking on the credibility of the call. This can be pure statistics for the crime and the area involved, but time of day, time of year, observer type/location, incident type/location are things best done by machines. Going further one could analyze stress in the voice using AI and possibly even do a voice print (not recognition, this is easier.) Think about abusive households, reliable snitches, as well as pranksters. You might not know who the prankster is, but you'll spot them calling from multiple locations... again, this is all a confidence level ranking system.

    3) Police get a SIMPLE EASY FAST % number on the credibility of the situation. They still make the judgement call but there is a world of difference between a 99% and 2% risk of an active shooter at the location.

    Furthermore, multiple witnesses calling at the same location with different accounts are easier to quickly prioritize conflicting information.

    4) VoIP needed to be better standardized and regulated. For example, I lost my long time number due to a 3rd party service agreement change when the law is actually that I own my phone number and they can't take it away. Still happened.

    1. Re:Threat Levels and AI and spam filtering by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I think your #2 is too hard to practically solve. The problem is underdetermined: There are too many possible variables and too few training cases. This means that your #3 will give unreliable numbers.

      That is why I only suggested the equivalent of your #1, which may depend on parts of #4: If VoIP is appropriately standardized, #1 becomes relatively simple and very robust, leading to reliable information for people to factor into their judgment about the situation at hand. It is better to provide simple, reliable information rather than the result of a complex but opaque and unreliable decision process.

    2. Re:Threat Levels and AI and spam filtering by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Your plan will work fine right up until someone is killed and a lawyer files a suit alleging that had the confidence rating not been so low, it would have been taken more seriously and the death prevented, and then the family gets on TV to vilify the police not taking calls seriously.

    3. Re:Threat Levels and AI and spam filtering by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      not a problem: 1st off, the degree of accuracy would be a factor in any half done system. Part #1 would get more influence!

      Just like a spam filtering system today, it's all statistics... if you just keep it simple, you have RULES like spam assassin does which have huge factors of influence then you have a lesser impact from the Bayes classifier. I'm not saying to make the Bayes classifier more important or even equal to other factors. (which works with tiny training sets unlike what you're thinking as typical AI, the perceptron filters.)

      I'm thinking simple actuarial science + statistical classifier having maybe a 25% influence on the recommendation. The other 100% could be rule based and get more weight as more calls confirm the report... the whole thing averaged... lots of ways to figure out how to do it. Case history logs of everything that has been input into a computer could be compiled to design rules and training data to give the best results.

      Fixing VoIP doesn't stop the problem. it minimizes just the crank calls. There is still a lot of inaccurate reports leading to problems that always has existed; and it happens more in larger communities where the cops don't know most the people they interact with. Think of the mentally impaired people who are shot because the cops don't realize the person is not going to respond as expected of a normal person. Simply indicating it's likely the perp is autistic could save a life.

    4. Re: Threat Levels and AI and spam filtering by javaman235 · · Score: 1

      The simple number is a good idea, just give a guideline, have police respond anyway. Still it's ridiculous that police would go into any dangerous situation with their guard down because of these clowns. There's a story about a boy who cried wolf, it encodes the Bayesian nature of human behavior. If you allow endless fake bombs into secure areass as a "joke" without punishments, it becomes easy in time to bring real ones in.

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
  18. Go through the internet logs to find out who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did it?

    1. Re:Go through the internet logs to find out who by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      And greatly increase the jail time for false reports, yes. I think about a year behind bars might discourage most people.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re: Go through the internet logs to find out who by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Moar Gulag now!!

    3. Re:Go through the internet logs to find out who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they should make it a felony with 1 year no probation MINIMUM. if someone gets shot, charge the false reporter with attempted/negligent homicide.

  19. What's good for one.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The caller must be held accountable,"

    And what about the one actually gunning down/assaulting the innocent person(s)? Our "justice" systems belief in prosecuting the person making a fake call and letting the one who pulls the trigger walk is a little like throwing the book at the planner/driver in bank robbery while letting the person who went into the bank and shot the guard/teller off with a stern warning.

  20. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    You would think they would at this point be privy to what is going on with the SWAT calls by now. But oh no. That's not how it works. The police get the latest and greatest machine guns, tanks, tactical outfits, and all the chicks, and they have ZERO accountability for being the soldiers on the streets.

    You when it will get fixed?

    When they start SWATting top US Federal and State officials, office-holders, their families, & friends. Until that happens, this is just something that happens to those 'deplorables' in 'flyover country' so who gives a fuck.

    When they're looking into their own kid's/spouse's eyes as they bleed-out on the floor of their own family room because of a SWATting, *then* they'll care.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  21. That's how IP works, you can't tell location well by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > If there is really no way for a 911 dispatcher to tell that a call is arriving from somewhere outside the local area through a commercial VoIP service, that is a shameful state of affairs that needs to be addressed. Probably all SWATing hoaxes involve that kind of proxy

    Well that is indeed how IP works. You can't reliably distinguish the location if the person has made an effort to mislead. The most popular geoip service, Max mind, claims 90 percent accuracy when nobody is trying to be tricky. That's their marketing claim for their own service; the real number is probably closer to 80 percent when no proxies are involved.

    I had an idea for how to make a quite accurate geoip service, but nobody has done it yet. Maybe I should call the one company best positioned to do it using my method. It would save them money to have good geoip data, and they happen to be in a position to collect fairly reliable data.

    If they aren't using proxies or anything you can fairly reliably figure out what COUNTRY they are in. As soon as it goes through a SOCKS proxy, the connection to the destination is literally coming from the proxy, so any geoip will give the location of the proxy.

    No proxy is needed for geoip services such as Vonage. I've moved maybe six times since I signed up for Vonage and they know may current address only based on what I type in to their web page. How else would they know when I move? I've taken my Vonage box with me on a week-long vacation once. They have no way of knowing where I am.

  22. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if your balls get Swatted, don't the police in full body armor end up providing loving care for them under the hard light of the siege lamps? That's got to be one of most uncomfortable sexual fantasies there is.

  23. Difficult one for cops to handle by bigmacx · · Score: 1

    Being a tech'y I cannot even imagine what it's like to be a cop and be a constant target in public. While I'm sure there's something to the current atmosphere focusing on police abuse and overuse of force, it's got to be terrifying, even if they won't admit it, to go to someone's house knowing that deadly force in either direction might be in play.

    These SWAT'ing things are truly horrifying. One wrong step on either side and someone is dead, from either site. Each and every one of you think what you would happen if you're playing video games with your headphones on an someone no-knock blasts into your home. What furtive gesture might you totally unintentionally make that would cause a cop to blast you?

    1. Re:Difficult one for cops to handle by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Now imagine how much worse it is when you get that knock on the door, and you are a young black man.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Difficult one for cops to handle by bigmacx · · Score: 1

      Homie don't play that

    3. Re: Difficult one for cops to handle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably very similar to how it feels when you get that knock on your door and you're a young working class white man.

  24. MAC address isn't visible after the first hop by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The Media Access Control (MAC) address isn't visible once it's an IP packet being routed over the internet. The "media" in "media access control" is the coaxial cable, for a cable modem. As soon as it hits the first router and transitions from coax to fiber or cat6 that's a new medium, and a new MAC. In other words, MAC is a layer 2 address.

    1. Re:MAC address isn't visible after the first hop by sjames · · Score: 1

      I know how layer 2 works. But since the cable company controls the entire last mile, and the other endpoint of the first hop is the cable co.'s head end, they know the MAC address (that's how they avoid servicing unregistered modems and track usage). Further upstream, they know the IP address to MAC association (they own the DHCP server)

      In other words, they know the MAC address.

  25. Re:That's how IP works, you can't tell location we by Entrope · · Score: 1

    Right. Almost no legitimate emergency call will involve people "trying to be tricky". If a VoIP call comes in to an emergency dispatcher with any "someone is trying to be tricky" indicator, that is a strong hint that it's a hoax. Identifying the call as a likely hoax should reduce the risk of the hoax getting anyone hurt.

    After we make sure no one is hurt by the emergency response, the question becomes tracking down the hoaxer. Maybe the company or service that connected the VoIP call to the emergency dispatcher should face fines if they cannot accurately identify the caller in the event of a hoax. Those questions are harder to answer in a way that addresses all the concerns about 911 access, but they are easily separated from the question of identifying a SWATing attempt.

    (I am not trying to save the world, just the targets of these hoaxes -- without compromising responses to real emergencies.)

  26. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know**

  27. Re:Stupid; the POLICE are responsible for a shooti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The number of people thinking fake callers should be held more accountable than the person pulling the trigger -- wake up call people! Why do we think it's ok for SWAT to kill an innocent person and then propose legislation that has nothing to do with the police? THE POLICE ARE THE PROBLEM, not people making fake calls. Fake calls have always happened, since the first phones.

  28. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there is really no way for a 911 dispatcher to tell that a call is arriving from somewhere outside the local area through a commercial VoIP service, that is a shameful state of affairs that needs to be addressed.

    They might not be able to detect it, but if they tried calling the number the call is allegedly coming from, and didn't get a busy signal, that should raise a flag. If it's answered, they have someone to talk to about the situation, if not and just ringing,then at least someone isn't on the line to 911... Yes, I realize - not perfect, for instance in cases of a location with a PBX and multiple lines. But for homes/mobiles I'd think it'd be a good start.

  29. Phone systems should have traceroute by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    We need to update our phone systems to allow a traceroute like command, rather than just looking at the claimed sender phone number.

    Knowing that a call that supposedly came from Chicago first entered the phone system in Alabama would be very helpful.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Phone systems should have traceroute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make it illegal for a provider to forward known spoofed data. Large fines and a disconnect from the PSTN network for repeat violations.

      Cut them off from the phone system, and you'll get them behaving pretty darn quick.

  30. This needs a technological solution by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Police need to take every call seriously and at least do a welfare check; that isn't going to change. We weed to be able to easily trace all calls back to their origin. I get calls from scammers using spoofed caller id all the time. How do I know they are spoofing the caller id? Because the first 6 digits of their number is the same as my own number -- and I don't know anybody with a number similar to mine. Also seems like a stupid strategy to convince you that one of your neighbors is calling, since my cell phone humber just indicates where I lived 15 years ago, not where I live now!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  31. Re:Stupid; the POLICE are responsible for a shooti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Igor,

    Your quarterly bonus is being withheld. Alexei reports that your posts are too easily detected as trolling. Please improve your efforts for the next payroll period.

    Boris

  32. My B.S. detector just went off. by McFortner · · Score: 1

    "Some experts have said police agencies need to take the phenomenon more seriously and provide formal training to dispatchers and others to better recognize hoax callers."

    I was a 911 dispatcher for 8 years and I can tell you this line is 100% B.S. You can NEVER treat a call like a hoax due to liability issues. I don't see the "experts" risking jail time for blowing off a call that was real. One of the first things you are taught is that lives are depending on how fast you can get the appropriate help to them in an emergency situation, and if you had a duty to react and fail to do so you can face CRIMINAL charges.

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
    1. Re:My B.S. detector just went off. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I was a 911 dispatcher for 8 years

      Then you know false or misleading calls happen all the time.

      You can NEVER treat a call like a hoax due to liability issues. I

      It doesn't have to mean blowing off calls like when Michael B Jordan tries to order a pizza. I can mean noticing that the house you're going to doesn't match the description being given over the phone so the first person who walks out the door isn't shot in two seconds.

    2. Re:My B.S. detector just went off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the first things you are taught is that lives are depending on how fast you can get the appropriate help to them in an emergency situation, and if you had a duty to react and fail to do so you can face CRIMINAL charges.

      Interesting, because the police have no such duty, at least here in the United States. See Warren v. D.C., and note that part of the case involved a dispatcher not properly forwarding a call to law enforcement.

  33. Good guys with guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see the problem, he should feel safe that good guys with guns spent some time in his house, he never was more safe in his life that in this moment.

  34. Non-trivial, but sometimes possible with uncertain by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > If a VoIP call comes in to an emergency dispatcher with any "someone is trying to be tricky" indicator, that is a strong hint that it's a hoax

    Such indicators are not reliable, and not always present, but there ARE indicators that could be used to *sometimes* suggest that something suspicious *might* be happening. For example, I have a list of virtually every open proxy used by hackers. Not all suspicious traffic comes through an open proxy, and not all traffic from open proxies is illegitimate, but it's an indicator that it may be suspicious. We took fifteen years building up our methods and database, so it's not trivial.

    >. Maybe the company or service that connected the VoIP call to the emergency dispatcher should face fines if they cannot accurately identify the caller in the event of a hoax.

    You can't do that without imposing a police state (and having serious problems when someone wants to call 911 from anywhere but their house.) In the US, we can't even expect people to show ID in order to VOTE, much less to call 911, so that's a total non-starter.

  35. Re:That's how GEOIP works, i.e. badly by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    > The most popular geoip service, Max mind, claims 90 percent accuracy when
    > nobody is trying to be tricky. That's their marketing claim for their own service;
    > the real number is probably closer to 80 percent when no proxies are involved.

    You mean THIS MaxMind http://www.bbc.com/news/techno... that decided to geo-locate "unknown" US IP addresses somewhere near the geographical centre of the USA? Unfortunately for the inhabitants of a farm located at those co-ordinates, that meant a constant stream of visits from all levels of police, not to mention a few vigilantes who wanted to take the law into their own hands.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  36. What did we learn from this and Parkland. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never call the cops. They are worse than useless and will likely shoot an innocent person given the chance.

    And yet some Americans want to disarm the civilian population. Odd set of circumstances here - we don't want anyone able to protect themselves, and the cops can't protect you either.

    Lefties are so weird like that. I think it's because they have devalued human life to the point you're just a sack of meat and bones waiting to be used by the elitists for their enjoyment or profit. Until they perfect AI and robotics so that they don't need you anymore.

  37. Re: You know what else gets Swatted? by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

    Have you tried calling a phone number in the past decade? If so, you may notice that the presence of a âoebusy signalâ is essentially non-existent. Further, if a 911 dispatcher has a call about an active emergency at their house, do you think that someone /not answering the phone/ after the call is disconnected is sufficient to declare a fraudulent call?

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
  38. Re:Stupid; the POLICE are responsible for a shooti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are generally stupid. You also have people with average brains working in the police force i.e. holding guns if need be (I was shocked to learn about that too). If so then the commanding officers should be held responsible at least to a point of disciplinary sanction if mistakes are made. However in today's world - it is often difficult to stand to shitstorm for not doing enough 'for our children'. Emotional response triggers used instead of arguments cause the policy to be fucked at the start. In discussed case where somebody got shot - it could be a genuine mistake by police officer in tense situation but questions should be asked why this happened really - did the guy do some odd moves? one could not see his hands? Why a person responding to a police is shot if no guns are seen? The penalty for fake 911 calls is another matter - shouting fire in a cinema is not allowed either or?

  39. A mayor was swatted in maryland in 2008 by Rujiel · · Score: 1
  40. Not that difficult by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    Take every call seriously, but don't shoot the first person within two seconds of him walking out the door. Far too many cops are scared chickenshits, or get-their-gun-off types, neither of which has any business being a cop or possessing a firearm.

    1. Re:Not that difficult by bigmacx · · Score: 2

      Yep. I really want to see what happens to the cop that blasted the wrong SWAT'd non-gamer. They were set soo far back and behind cover. I dunno what the risk really was to them beyond what we should expects cops to endure. Not sorry, it's a dangerous field you chose, so you're not gonna be able to be completely safe all the time...

      But then again, we have the time just recently with the AR-15 cop that killed that suspect who four-legged crawling at him while being ordered to do so and then the cop murdered him, but not according to the jury.

      And killing our dogs seems to be sport to them. The one time I know was public news where the cop was pursuing a suspect through yards and went through one with a dog in it...not the suspect's dog or anywhere near his yard. The cop blasted it of course and nothing happened to them. Killing your pet is sport to cops.

  41. Go back to old policing tactics by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    Back in the day they wouldn't just kick the door down and go in with tactical teams every time they got a call. Obviously use SWAT when you need "Special Weapons And Tactics"... but if what you actually need to do is send some officers over to knock on a door.. .maybe do that instead.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  42. One of them wasn’t actually a swatting... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    "teams of Los Angeles police officers and other rescue personnel who believed two people had just hung themselves."

    I understand that this one turned out to be just a pair of Hollywood plastic surgeons practicing on each other.

  43. Unregulated by DogDude · · Score: 1

    VOIP is largely unregulated. It needs to be regulated. The current federal government won't do that. They're too busy stuffing their pockets with "campaign donations" from AT&T, Time-Warner, and Comcast.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  44. it can be defended; maybe people are 2 stupid? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    People SUE for every stupid thing imaginable; it is not a reason to avoid doing something. The cops ultimately decide and while it does give the cops something to use an excuse, the city gets sued regardless! Rarely does it ever come down to just the cop who gets sued for money.

    It's just a ball park which WILL reduce how many innocents are harmed. Right now you have an INFORMAL process at best. "Black man seen climbing into window" already has a % bias being applied which is NOT in writing. Lawsuits happen all the time, it's hard to prove anything -- this does provide more paper trail...

    One defense of actuarial science (like insurance companies do to us all already) is that you can trace down the unbiased statistics or have a black box AI -- but you can't claim unfair HUMAN BIAS. Now when the cop gets a 5% warning but shoots the black suspect 1st then you have a much stronger case for the lawsuit against the city.

    People ALREADY make these judgements by neighborhood, history, looks, race, gender, nature of the threat... Crazy people do call -- aliens invading a house is not going to get a SWAT reaction. Judgement calls are made and small towns even more so-- local policing is the thing people often idealize. A system which brings more of that into reality would be nice. The cop doesn't need to know you like a small town cop would, the system doesn't need to invade your privacy as much as a small town cop does either but it can provide useful context beyond you just being a unknown situation where biases are influencing every decision by the second.

  45. military response? by k6mfw · · Score: 2

    I haven't followed much of these stories, I see lots of media and commentaries but no personal knowledge of situations calling for a SWAT team. It seems to me these events begin with one phone call from a single person that leads police to response like the military, similar to something looks funny so call in a airstrike with a few 2000lb bombs. If approaching this like the military, have a recon team to assess the situation before calling in the big stuff that leads to huge collateral damage. Or treat it like a crime instead of a war.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  46. Correction for Article Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Los Angeles Police Department "said there's no way to initially discern swatting calls from actually emergencies, so every scenario they handle someone's life is in danger,"

    There, fixed it for you.

  47. return to civilian policing by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

    America does not need SWAT teams. We don't need an occupying army with tanks and machine guns rampaging through our city streets.

    Disband all SWAT team is now! Return to civilian policing!

    For that once-a-year situation that's too much for normal cops to handle, that's why we have a National Guard. In the other 99.999% of the situations there is no need for a paramilitary response.

    1. Re:return to civilian policing by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The tragedy in Wichita was because an officer screwed up and shot. I've read that the officer wasn't a part of the SWAT team, so, as far as the incident went, the SWAT team did exactly what they should have.

      The National Guard is often called "weekend warriors", because they train during weekends and another two weeks a year. When you need the National Guard right now, odds are everybody's off at their jobs or their homes or bars or something. It takes time to call the Guard up.

      Once the National Guard are finally at the possible crime scene, what do they do? They have training in how to assault a building and clear it, but they aren't expected to do that without casualties. If you need a fortified defense position neutralized, that's more their speed.

      What we need in a situation like that is a police unit that's trained in crisis situations, not a bunch of beat cops, and not a military force.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re: return to civilian policing by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Remember the old Republic, back when America was still a free country? Somehow that worked just fine without paramilitary police death squads lurking in every city. Really I don't give a shit if a few criminals get away, if that's the price for living in a free society.

    3. Re: return to civilian policing by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, back when the crime rate was higher? There are rare situations that come up in which a specially trained police unit is extremely useful. I'm not claimed that they're necessarily trained or equipped properly, or used appropriately, but a SWAT team is useful.

      Given equivalent situations, are a SWAT team more likely to kill an innocent than a regular police officer? In the Wichita shooting, someone here claimed (I didn't follow it up and check it myself) that the officer who shot the fatal bullet was not, in fact, SWAT. It's possible that, if it had just been the SWAT guys, nobody would have died.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re: return to civilian policing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to various sources sited by Wikipedia the officer was not SWAT. The Witchita Police Department has refused to identify the officer, release body camera footage, release personal items of the victims family including PC's and phones or in any other way take responsibility for the shooting.
      In other words they are doing every thing possible to harass the victim's family and duck responsibility and I hope Finch's family sues the city, police department and officer into oblivion.
      Meanwhile the caller needs to spend a long time in jail too, as well as facing civil damage, just as a disincentive to other swatters.

    5. Re: return to civilian policing by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      You give technical arguments, when the real question is whether or not we want to live in a free society. I fear I know your answer.

    6. Re: return to civilian policing by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No, actually, either you're some sort of weirdo or my answer isn't what you fear it is.

      It can be very useful to have a SWAT team handy. That's what I said. SWAT teams are perfectly compatible with a free society.

      Now, it's possible for a police force to become oppressive, but that can happen with or without SWAT teams. It's possible for a SWAT team to be incorrectly equipped, incorrectly trained, or incorrectly used, and a SWAT team certainly can become a tool of oppression. However, there will be other tools.

      So, broadly speaking, if you have a good police force a SWAT team can be useful, and if you have a bad one it really doesn't matter.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  48. Re: Stupid; the POLICE are responsible for a shoot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good morning, Comrade Wang! How's the air pollution in Beijing today?

  49. Re:Stupid; the POLICE are responsible for a shooti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until you understand why the conversation isn't focused on police (the ones pulling the trigger) then you understand nothing.

  50. Re:Stupid; the POLICE are responsible for a shooti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, you think Americans don't want police accountability or are too stupid to understand how these incidents affect them? Screw you, screw all oath breakers, the revolution will not be kind to traitors.

  51. repeal second amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Proof that video games promote violence. Ban them, and guns too. Repeal the second amendment.

  52. How about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deliberately false emergency phone calls earn caller life in prison, to think about what he/she did. Bet most would stop.

  53. 12 year old streamer by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

    Where are the parents? 12 year olds should not be streaming live on the internet.

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  54. Re:Stupid; the POLICE are responsible for a shooti by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    It isn't just a waste of resources, it's deliberatey endangering others. No matter how well trained the officers are, there's the possibility of someone getting shot. The officers may think they're in danger, and all it takes is one officer making the wrong decision to create a tragedy. Obviously, the officer concerned should be held responsible, but if the swatter hadn't created the situation to allow the officer to kill someone with a wrong decision there wouldn't have been a death.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  55. they cant ignore a possible emergency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even if they think it may be fake they still have to respond!
    clearly they need to do more to catch the perpetrators and increase the punishment. make it a felony charge of negligent homicide, or reckless endangerment. put the perp behind bars for at least 10 years, no probation.

  56. My only question is this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it that SWAT are coming to a call where someone has supposedly killed themselves? What are they hoping to do? Arrest the rope and expecting that the rope is heavily armed and dangerous????

    FFS people.

  57. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do not click this link it's creimer's referrer spam.
    Why does the management let him make sockpuppets and spam the shit out of the place?

  58. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut the fuck up creimer you're trying to get people to click on your stupid as fuck spam scams.
    You know why slashdot is getting 500s right now? Because of people who are just as shitty and shady as you but also more technically proficient
    They're killing the server by flooding journals and other unthrottled forms with links to their websites in order to improve their google pageranks and they're killing the site.

    They are the trash that has ruined the internet and you are one of them and that is why people don't like you. Just because lots of people are trash doesn't mean you should go out and buy their how2spam book and become trash too.

  59. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is someone else's sock puppet. Don't let that inconvenient fact get in the way of your stupidity.

    ---
    #BananasMatterToo

  60. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There you are again and again spamming amazon and youtube affiliate links with yet another fake account, you revenue stream hogging disgusting fat sexist tube of lard, Christopher Dale Reimer!

    You can be sure I will be watching this fake account too. I know this is you because you told me you were working on your freepass 11 file server and you are so dumb that you can't even masquerade yourself properly.

    Now, I told you I was out of meds last week and you didn't even care to contact me you lazy fucker.

    How many times do I have to express the emergency of the situation??????

    The python click script you wrote for my pheromone revenue stream web site suddenly stopped to work!!!!!!

    You fucking incompetent python script writer!!!

    When it works, I get 4000+ clicks a day on my pheromone revenue stream web site but only 5 or 6 without it!!!!

    Now, it seems like you dont care and that you have abandoned me you heartless fucking pig!

    Bonus:
    Here is a story that creimer told me when convincing me what a hard life he had:

    The tree was him and the tree knot was his butt hole!

    So, his uncle packed his fat ass with lard and with his cock! Not that it makes much of a difference but anyway, there it is!

    Signed:
    Ethell, The girl that used to love you and now hates you, burn in hell where you belong you sexist pig!

  61. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CREIMER' SUBMISSIONS UPDATE:
    Note also that creimer is trying to regain karma by getting his submissions published as articles on /. so make sure to go to:
    https://slashdot.org/~crreimer
    https://slashdot.org/~cdreimer
    https://slashdot.org/~criss69
    https://slashdot.org/~Anonymou...
    https://slashdot.org/~FatCashe...
    https://slashdot.org/~ILoveFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~IHateFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~IAteFatC...
    https://slashdot.org/~ITapeFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~IApeFatC...
    https://slashdot.org/~IPrayFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~FatCashe...
    and mod down his submissions as well. The great thing is that you don't even need mod points to mod down a submission, just click on the "minus" icon!

    Yes, believe it or not, creimer owns all the above sock puppet accounts. It is a mystery why Slashdot management tolerates it!

    creimer wrote:

    I don't bother with mod points. I'm doing something much more sinister. It took ten story submissions ? I'll have to double check the number ? to move cdreimer's karma from neutral to excellent without ever being exposed to the capricious mods. Mmmmmwwwwahahahahahahaha!

    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! Creimy is posting more than 2 posts a day. Hurry! mod down otherwise /. will go to hell again!

    Note: you can mod down even if already at -1 to lower karma and to prevent lost /. users to accidentally mod up.

    creimer wrote:

    All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. Won't be long before you start making "coffee money" each month.

    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    C.D. Reimer is a renowned Slashdot collaborator, as he puts it himself; "Because of the quality of my posts and my article submissions, I'm a highly rated commentator and moderator."

    But does anybody ever wondered what "C.D." stands for? Well, it stands for Creimy Dumpty of course!

    Creimy Dumpty sat on the wall,
    Creimy Dumpty had a great fall.
    All the king's horses
    And all the king's men
    Couldn't put Creimy Dumpty
    Together again.

    Creimy's siblings video and theme song, very realistic, especially the pants, just like Creimy's:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    With "Vice President Pence Vowing US Astronauts Will Return To the Moon", we are sure they will need miracle workers up there, here is what it would look like. Note that Creimy takes care of bringing a lot of food to the moon as depicted below:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Creimy's real pictures:
    Before the sex change:
    https://ibb.co/cc7Ddw
    After the sex change:
    https://ibb.co/gVad65

    Creimy's "enterprise-level" chair, he talks about it all the time on slashdot:
    http://www.keynamics.com/image...

  62. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's someone else's sockpuppet
    1)Why is he trying to talk up YOUR amazon referrer links with a contextless meaningless "Oh yeah that link has a great thing that's great oh man u should so click it"... did he check every single Anonymous Coward post for links with your spam just so he could promote them as soon as his account was created?
    2)You must have been then so touched by his desire to help your spam business that you watched his every post and made sure to respond to his 2nd post within minutes.

    You do know that spammer shitstains like you are the reason the server is spitting out 500s. They're spamming slashdot with links to their bullshit to improve their google pageranks. Does this help you understand why slashdotters do not like spam?

  63. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I gave up spamming Slashdot six months ago. My YouTube links are outward and not inward. If the gateway is doing a Bouncing Betty, management must be replacing Perl with Python on the back end.

    As for this fake account, I replied to have it shut down.

    ---
    #BananasMatterToo

  64. Re:You know what else gets Swatted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for adding "crreimer" to your list.

    ---
    #BananasMatterToo