FBI Forms National Database To Track and Prevent 'Swatting' - Slashdot - JOYK Joy of Geek, Geek News, Link all geek

FBI Forms National Database To Track and Prevent 'Swatting'

Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

binspam dupe notthebest offtopic slownewsday stale stupid fresh funny insightful interesting maybe offtopic flamebait troll redundant overrated insightful interesting informative funny underrated descriptive typo dupe error

Do you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your projects have a backup location, and get your project in front of SourceForge's nearly 30 million monthly users. It takes less than a minute. Get new users downloading your project releases today!

Sign up for the Slashdot newsletter! or check out the new Slashdot job board to browse remote jobs or jobs in your area

According to NBC News, the FBI created a national online database in May to facilitate information sharing between hundreds of police departments and law enforcement agencies across the country pertaining to swatting incidents. From the report: No central agency has tracked swatting incidents or suspects in the U.S., so official statistics are not available. By 2019, there were an estimated 1,000 swatting incidents domestically each year, according to a report from the Anti-Defamation League, and each incident is estimated to cost at least $10,000 to affected communities, even before expenditures on follow-up work like investigations, property repairs and counseling. Swatting is increasingly enabled by technology that can be used to mask a caller's real voice, their phone number or IP address (also called "spoofing") or to make their false report sound more credible.

[Chief Scott Schubert with the bureau's Criminal Justice Information Services headquarters in Clarksburg, West Virginia] told NBC News that the FBI's new centralized database should help the agency "get that common picture of what's going on across our nation so we can learn from that." [...] While the earliest recorded case of swatting occurred in 2002, to this day, there is no specific law criminalizing swatting in the U.S., says John Jay's Shapiro. "Without a statute in place, there's no designated resources or training for investigating swatting incidents," she said. "And the 911 dispatchers do not have the resources and training they need to differentiate between actual emergencies and false reports."

Legally, the False Information and Hoaxes statute, also known as section 1038, is most frequently used to prosecute swatting. Other statutes can sometimes apply -- one pertaining to interstate threats involving explosives and another pertaining to interstate communications, which refers to extortion or threats to injure or kidnap somebody. "Too often, perpetrators are getting a slap on the wrist compared to the consequences suffered by their victims," Shapiro said.

- Re:
  
  Every non-accidental killing is a form law enforcement, it's just a question of number of people who made the law to suit their need. Wherein "number of people" can be anywhere from over 330 million to one individual.
›

of our militarized police, how about we demilitarize them?

It's infuriating how right wingers bang on about gov't over reach but are happy to give what can best be described as an occupational force access to military grade weapons. Neo-liberals aren't much better, and the left is completely ineffective with dumb slogans like "defund the police".
- Re:
  
  Right winger here, I don't agree at all with the militarization of the police. Does this mean I'm not a true right winger?
  - It means you're a fool
    
    Because whether you support it or not every decision you make politically supports it. Your fundamental belief system in a hierarchical natural order by itself encourages if not requires you to support the notarization of police. Whether you oppose it on an emotional level is irrelevant. You're right wing belief system will inevitably lead you to a series of political decisions that always end with a militarized police or with your belief system be marginalized.
    
    That is partially because your economic po
    - Re:
      
      Yeah, I subscribed to him for a bit. I unsubscribed when he said it's impossible to support free speech without supporting his ideology of "justice". It was so retarded I couldn't take him seriously anymore.
    - Re:
      
      Yeah, great. Blame every conservative-leaning individual for the entire Republican party's shortcomings. The problem with this view is it leaves no middle ground. "You're either for us or against us!"
      I agree with some of the conservative ideals and some of the liberal ideals. I guess you could call me a centralist. If I agree with the conservatives on some things it doesn't mean I have to agree with their views on reproductive rights. If I agree with the liberals it doesn't mean I have to agree with t
      - 1 hidden comment
      - Re:
        
        If you keep voting for the fascists, then you're a fascist, and you're responsible for fascism. It's not complicated. See, you either voted, or you didn't, and you either voted for the fascists, or you didn't. It's absolutely black and white.
        
        Re:
        
        So you're saying that you, Drinkypoo, are directly responsible for the current state of fascism the US exists in thanks to the unprecedented merger of the corporate and the state that took place almost exclusively under Democrat administrations?
        
        Re:
        
        I am partly responsible, sure. Thing is, I'm not sure what else I was supposed to do. I was voting against people who wanted rights taken away immediately.
        
        Re:
        
        You were supposed to ignore the sponsored offerings and vote for someone you could support. Since you're voting against something (which is stupid, but that's a different rant) let me put it this way: That's not a wasted vote in exactly the same way it is claimed only a vote for a major candidate is not a wasted vote: enough people need to vote against this corrupt two party system before we the people can win.
        
        Honest question
        
        Which rights? I suspect it's guns but I wonder if there are others
        
        Re:
        
        > If you keep voting for the fascists, then you're a fascist, and you're responsible for fascism. It's not complicated. See, you either voted, or you didn't, and you either voted for the fascists, or you didn't. It's absolutely black and white.
        
        Dumb take. GOP are fascists, yes. The DNC are also fascists.
        
        We have a binary voting system right now and the only choices given to us are between two different flavors of fascist.
      - You're not conservative
        
        I'm conservative. Bernie Sanders is conservative. You're right wing. On the right wing your fundamental belief system is that there is a natural hierarchy everyone fits into and that any deviation from that hierarchy causes disaster. There are some people by accident of birth who are born outside their natural hierarchy position and there needs to be a system to move those people to the correct position in your worldview, but nothing in your worldview can possibly change that natural hierarchy.
        
        As a resul
      - Re:
        
        I don't care who's saying that is, I like it.
        Trump invited Nick Fuentes to share his table. No protest there.
        Nazi.
    - Re:
      
      WTF, mods, this is an excellent post. Stop modding by opinion! As you mod so it will be modded unto you!
  - Re:
    
    No one is. No one is going to fit perfectly into a mold like that, everyone has their own idiosyncratic beliefs.
    
    It's best not to think of yourself, or anyone else, in those kind of tribalistic terms.
First. Equipment with main purpose to kill people should be forbidden to civilians. Period. How can one not understand that? One, masses, not one. If you make everything, including violence, a business item, you get violence. That should be exclusive right of only two entities. Second would be education and psychological readiness of everyone with the right to violence. They are critically low in your country. Signs of bravado - off you go to deskjob or out completely. Assess the situation instead of trust
- Re:
  
  >Equipment with main purpose to kill people should be forbidden to civilians
  
  I'm sure all the civilians will cooperate with this law, and there will be absolutely no tyranny involved in enforcing it.
- There's a way to do that
  
  And there's a legal way to do that: make an amendment to the constitution.
  That's your recourse. Do that, it's the legal way, it's what you have to do. Nothing else will suffice.
  Since another amendment specifically allows ownership, everything you might try will be struck down. Everything. It's explicitly mentioned in the constitution, therefore it's a protected right. No law can override that. Nothing you do will affect it. It's not a possible outcome.
  You are a completely different person, with views that a
  - 1 hidden comment
  - Re:
    
    What does the law say about machine guns & hand-grenades? What does it say about citizens with violent criminal convictions? It's continuum on which they've decided to draw a line. What we're negotiating here is where to draw that line.
    - nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
      Your first question is an example of an explicit violation. Your second is an example of something explicitly permitted. This is not a continuum, there is a hard line that has been clearly defined in the constitution. The government simply chooses to disregard it utterly just like they did with warrantless domestic spying.
      - Re:
        
        Interestingly, an originalist would likely say since the founders had laws in lace regulating firearms and ammunition, banning ownership, had militia laws concerning registration, that those actions are permissible today; since that shows what the original public meaning would have had at the time that it became law.
      - Re:
        
        To clarify: Are citizens with violent criminal convictions permitted to bear arms, e.g. machine guns & hand-grenades? What about people with mental illness or are known to be members of or provide support to radical extremist groups?
  - Re:
    
    Not necessary. The constitution clearly says the right to bear arms is only for a well-regulated militia. At least, that's one interpretation of the text. And this far-right MAGA supreme court has already set the precedent that its ok to "reinterpret" the constitution any way they choose to promote their political and religious ideology. So no, it doesn't need an amendment, just the right composition of justices.
    
    [citation needed]. Because not only does every other civilised nation have more freedom with
    - Re: There's a way to do that
      
      The "well regulated militia" thing is a justification, not a limitation. The "militia" they were talking about anyone able to fight. "Well regulated" means "in good working order". If you don't believe me, go read what the founders wrote on arms.
      Imagine if you could get out of a contract by redefining terms. That's what the anti-gun politicians are doing.
  - You were never raised in a free country, you didn't have free speech when you grew up, you don't understand the importance of rights.
    I like this comment more than anything. It implies that the USA is the only great functional country in the world with happy people secure in their lives and persons. Yet reality can't be further from the truth.
    Equating freedom with owning a weapon design exclusively to end someone's life is one of the most antisocial definitions of freedom there is.
    Better still talking about historical context and applying it to North times is something that makes the USA more in common with Iran, Afghanistan and other true shitholes that place value off historical practices over those of a developing society. I personally suspect the 2nd would never have been written or passed had it been proposed at a time where the arms being discussed would allow a person to indiscriminately mow down literal hordes of people without them being able to react.
    Real freedom comes from not having an absolute high chance of dying while living your daily life.
  - Re:
    
    Since another amendment specifically allows ownership, everything you might try will be struck down. Everything. It's explicitly mentioned in the constitution, therefore it's a protected right. No law can override that.
    
    Ok originalist, you win. We'll honor the Constitution. Citizens may own any weapon existing in 1791 when the second amendment was ratified. Any musket, flintlock, arquebus, or other muzzle-loading weapon is permitted. The right to powder horns and tamping rods shall not be infringed.
    - Re:
      
      Alright troll, you win. Your freedom of speech only applies to quill and parchment.
      By the way automatic weapons existed at the time of the ratification.
  - Re:
    
    Here's the problem with that, it's increasingly false. There was a time when that might have worked, but it was before the broad deployment of FLIR. Now there's nowhere you can hide.
    The time to rebel against the government with guns was the 1960s. The black panthers were showing the way, but the bulk of the gun owners hated those guys. They were on the wrong side.
    I have guns. I believe in resisting fascism. But you can't do it with guns any more. That shit is over. They love it when you resist. They'll just
  - Re:
    
    "we're not colonizers like England, France, Portugal, and the Dutch (of old) and Russia and Germany of last century"
    The Native Americans would strongly disagree
    "Having guns is what keeps us free"
    Not as much as you think. The gubmint has weapons you can't win against with weapons you can purchase or can carry.
    RPGs at a minimum is what you'd need & even then you're severely disadvantaged against attack helicopters which can track & kill you from further away than you can see them, possibly even hear t
- Re:
  
  Our founding fathers built into our Constitution the right of the people to own said equipment. If you want to limit that right, you need to amend the Constitution to do so, otherwise the courts can just overturn any and all laws written to instill limits on that right.
  - 1 hidden comment
  - Re: Database won't prevent swatting
    
    Lol someone wrote something on paper almost 200 years ago. Time to move on, Murica!
- Re:
  
  Swatting is where the police go kill someone; the criminal civilian is just phoning in a fake report (which could be almost anything).
  The obvious solution is to outlaw crime. That will stop those criminals. And we won't need the police and their bad bad guns, then, either.
Nothing useful has actually been done. Congrats. The FBI once again being useless.
I suspect very few. Maybe it's a good time for 'Murica to ask themselves why they've got a problem that the majority of other countries don't. You can add frequent mass-shootings to that list too.
It's called >felony murder [cornell.edu]. Prosecutors don't use it nearly enough, but they should. The first caller who gets someone killed should be slapped with felony murder and get the book thrown at them, which IIRC under federal law felony murder can carry execution.
- 1 hidden comment
- Re:
  
  No, you don't have a really awesome law for this.
  Your post assumes the police are a dumb weapon to be workers by a murderer. A really awesome law would hold the people who do the killing, I.e. The police, responsible for manslaughter or murder. Because the police are people who have agency.
- Troll?
  
  Good point. Also why is "Troll" a downmod to begin with?
  Seems sort of racist against trolls.
Maybe a local database would be better. If SWAT were sent to a certain house in the past and it was a false alarm, don't go 200% to the house again. How would a national database help?
Forming a national database is a lie. The FBI has had this database for years. They aren't forming it. They have simply decided that now it is ok to share that data with other law enforcement agencies.
They should consider not swarming a home with a team of heavily armed ( and trigger happy ) police when the only evidence you're working with is a telephone call ( which are easily spoofed because telecoms won't fix that fucking problem ).

FBI Forms National Database To Track and Prevent 'Swatting' - Slashdot

Recommend

About Joyk