Slashdot Mirror


Seattle Police Department Is Offering An Anti-Swatting Service (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The practice of "swatting," or calling in fake threats to activate an aggressive police response to an unwitting home or business, has unfortunately lingered for the past few years. Starting this week, one police department in the United States is rolling out a system targeted directly at this illegal hoax practice. On its official "swatting" resource site, the Seattle Police Department acknowledges how swatting works, along with the fact that citizens have requested a way to submit their own concerns or worries about being a potential victim. "To our knowledge, no solution to this problem existed, so we engineered one," SPD's site reads. The site claims that swatting victims are "typically associated with the tech industry, video game industry, and/or the online broadcasting community."

SPD's process asks citizens to create a profile on a third-party data-management service called Rave Facility (run by the company Smart911). Though this service is advertised for public locations and businesses, it supports private residences as well, and SPD offers steps to input data and add a "swatting concerns" tab to your profile. With that information in hand, SPD says that any police or 911 operator who receives a particularly troubling emergency report and matches it to a location that has already been flagged with a "swatting concerns" notice, will share that information "with first responders to inform and improve their police response to the incident."
The report notes that "all calls" will still receive standard police response, whether or not any swatting concerns are filed. "Nothing about this solution is designed to minimize or slow emergency services," the site reads. "At the same time, if information is available, it is more useful for responding officers to have it than to not."

15 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Great, this is kinda like opt out death by police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not sure why we have to opt out, but at least it's better than being dead. I think it might help if cops lived in the real world and took a step back once in a while and realize we are not Iraq.

  2. Heres a novel idea: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about SPD assume that everyone is worried about SWATTING and behave accordingly.

  3. Re:Do Not Swat by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

    You want to opt out of all police response?
    Smart. I support you fully, thanks for saving tax money, please don't leave a big stain on the floor when you go.

  4. Wrong answer by LostOne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or the police could actually respond with someone who actually, I don't know, investigates the report *before* sending in a paramilitary force? I mean, it seems like getting some Mark I eyeballs on a scene first would prevent pretty much every case of SWATing. That doesn't mean that the SWAT people don't go out to the location. Only that they do not deploy as the *first* option before there are any eyeballs on the scene.

    --

    If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
    1. Re:Wrong answer by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This does raise a question, how often does a 911 call actually justify a response by SWAT?

      If a police department wants to keep their SWAT team, and keep getting all the cool mil-spec equipment, then they need to use it as often as possible. Otherwise, their budget will get cut.

    2. Re:Wrong answer by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      That doesn't mean that the SWAT people don't go out to the location. Only that they do not deploy as the *first* option before there are any eyeballs on the scene.

      What and have them give up an opportunity to play soldier? Good luck with that! -_-

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Wrong answer by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      One obvious solution is to embed a trained observer with each SWAT team, and make the policy that they take a look at the situation before the safeties come off. That way you still get to deploy the team, but there is at least a procedure in place which if followed can reduce SWATting incidents.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. How About SWAT Liability? by mentil · · Score: 4, Informative

    The report notes that "all calls" will still receive standard police response, whether or not any swatting concerns are filed.

    So they'll still break down the wrong door, flashbang your baby, and charge you with assault/murder if you try and defend yourself from the shouting armed intruders.
    This also does nothing if the swatters get the address of their target wrong. That said, it's a tiny step forward, that the Seattle PD is even acknowledging swatting might be a problem.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  6. In summary by TimMD909 · · Score: 2

    They agree that standard police procedures can increase the likelihood of being killed by the police. Good.

    They think that having an opt-in service for having people voluntarily put on a target on their back (because they have another target on their back) will make the situation better. Bad.

    Where did we lose the policemen between the 1st and 2nd part? Why don't they simply treat everyone as at risk of swatting?

    1. Re:In summary by novakyu · · Score: 2

      Except in the SWAT'ing cases where someone died, the person had no idea they were going to get SWAT'ed, because the person who had a reason to be targeted gave someone else's info in provoking the future felon. https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03...

      There is some serious loss of common sense in Seattle Police Department (or any police department) thinking something like this: (1) won't get abused, and (2) will actually save lives.

  7. Re:Great, this is kinda like opt out death by poli by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That last swatting incident (well, I do hope there haven't been any since) absolutely did not warrant a huge response in the form of massive presence of police with weapons at the ready, nor did it in any way shape or form warrant the officers opening fire on the guy. GP is absolutely right that police officers would do well to realize they are "not in Iraq", and that they are dealing with citizens who are at most suspected of wrongdoing. And as long as they are merely suspect, they deserve to be treated courteously and not end up dead.

    Given the MO of police in the USA, I seriously doubt that this anti swatting database is going to make any difference.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  8. Do not shoot list by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    I do wonder if this Do Not Shoot list will be as effective as a Do Not Call list. I mean they could try not running in guns akimbo in the first place, but apparently this American specific problem has no solution.

  9. Should be the default, not 3rd-party enabled by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

    ...share that information "with first responders to inform and improve their police response to the incident."

    Shouldn't such improvements in response be the norm, not the outlier?

  10. How About... by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Twenty year minimum for SWATTING.

    Complete financial liability for all property damage and injuries.

    Complete criminal liability for for all property damage and injuries.

    SWATTERS deserve to die in prison.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:How About... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Used a burner phone. Catch them if you can.

      And how much in financial restitution do you think you're gonna get from someone who lives in their mom's basement and plays Video games for a living?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.