July 24, 2019

Nearly three dozen journalists at a broad range of major publications have been targeted by a far-right group that maintains a Deep Web database listing the personal information of people who threaten their views. This group specializes in encouraging others to harass those targeted by their ire, and has claimed responsibility for dozens of bomb threats and “swatting” incidents, where police are tricked into visiting potentially deadly force on the target’s address.

At issue is a site called the “Doxbin,” which hosts the names, addresses, phone number and often known IP addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth and other sensitive information on hundreds of people — and in some cases the personal information of the target’s friends and family.

A significant number of the 400+ entries on the Doxbin are for journalists (32 at last count, including Yours Truly), although the curators of Doxbin have targeted everyone from federal judges to executives at major corporations. In January 2019, the group behind Doxbin claimed responsibility for doxing and swatting a top Facebook executive.

At least two of the journalists listed on the Doxbin have been swatted in the past six months, including Pulitzer prize winning columnist Leonard G. Pitts Jr.

In some cases, as in the entries for reporters from CNN, Politico, ProPublica and Vox, no reason is mentioned for their inclusion. But in many others, the explanation seems connected to stories the journalist has published dealing with race or the anti-fascist (antifa) movement.

“Anti-white race/politics writer,” reads the note next to Pitts’ entry in the Doxbin.

Many of those listed on the site soon find themselves on the receiving end of extended threats and harassment. Carey Holzman, a computer technician who runs a Youtube channel on repairing and modding computers, was swatted in January, at about the same time his personal information showed up on the Doxbin.

More recently, his tormentors started calling his mobile phone at all hours of the night, threatening to hire a hit man to kill him. They even promised to have drugs ordered off the Dark Web and sent to his home, as part of a plan to get him arrested for drug possession.

“They said they were going to send me three grams of cocaine,” Holzman told KrebsOnSecurity.

Sure enough, earlier this month a small vial of white powder arrived via the U.S. Postal Service. Holzman said he didn’t open the vial, but instead handed it over to the local police for testing.

On the bright side, Holzman said, he is now on a first-name basis with some of the local police, which isn’t a bad idea for anyone who is being threatened with swatting attacks.

“When I told one officer who came out to my house that they threatened to send me drugs, he said ‘Okay, well just let me know when the cocaine arrives,'” Holzman recalled. “It was pretty funny because the other responding officer approached us and only caught the last thing his partner said, and suddenly looked at the other officer with deadly seriousness.”

The Doxbin is tied to an open IRC chat channel in which the core members discuss alt-right and racist tropes, doxing and swatting people, and posting videos or audio news recordings of their attacks.

The individual who appears to maintain the Doxbin is a fixture of this IRC channel, and he’s stated that he also was responsible for maintaining SiegeCulture, a white supremacist Web site that glorifies the writings of neo-Nazi James Mason.

Mason’s various written works call on followers to start a violent race war in the United States. Those works have become the de facto bible for the Atomwaffen Division, an extremist group whose members are suspected of having committed multiple murders in the U.S. since 2017.

Courtney Radsch, advocacy director at the nonprofit Committee to Protect Journalists, said lists that single out journalists for harassment unfortunately are not uncommon.

“We saw in the Ukraine, for example, there were lists of journalists compiled that led to harassment and threats against reporters there,” Radsch said. “We saw it in Malta where there were reports that the prime minister was part of a secret Facebook group used to coordinate harassment campaigns against a journalist who was later murdered. And we’ve seen the American government — the Customs and Border Protection — compiling lists of reporters and activists who’ve been singled out for questioning.”

Radsch said when CPJ became aware that the personal information of several journalists were listed on a doxing site, they reached out and provided information on relevant safety resources.

“It does seem that some of these campaigns by extremist groups are being coordinated in secret chat groups or dark web forums, where they can talk about the messaging before they bring it out into the public sphere,” she said.

In some ways, the Doxbin represents a far more extreme version of Exposed[.]su, a site erected briefly in 2013 by a gang of online hoodlums that doxed and swatted celebrities and public figures. The core members of that group were later arrested and charged with various crimes — including numerous swatting attacks.

One of the men in that group — convicted serial swatter and stalker Mir Islam — was arrested last year in the Philippines and charged with murder after he and an associate allegedly dumped the body of a friend in a local river.

Swatting attacks can quickly turn deadly. In March 2019, 26-year-old serial swatter Tyler Barriss was sentenced to 20 years in prison for making a phony emergency call to police in late 2017 that led to the shooting death of an innocent Kansas resident.

My hope is that law enforcement officials can shut down this Doxbin gang before someone else gets killed.

142 thoughts on “Neo-Nazi SWATters Target Dozens of Journalists

  1. Inspector Didi

    Excellent reporting by my favorite journalist!! Congrats! Keep up the good work!

    1. dissociative subjackET

      this is too much for it only being 4:00am. it’s twilight zone on steroids.

      my… daughter and i aren’t budging when it’s finally time. we trust no one. we’ve been put through hell… on steroids.

      brian, i’ve started a couple emails to you, but they sounded kookoo even to me. hitman. we’re talking the same language now. let me see if i can find that again. you’ll be the second to know if i do.

      thanks for your ongoing work.

    2. Dave

      Agree! Brian impresses me with the number of articles he puts out and the amount of time the research takes for some of these articles. Great job Brian!

  2. lol

    Doxbin you’re speaking of is a copycat made by Julius Kivimäki.

    1. AAAAaAaAaa

      Doesn’t Kivimäki control the original private keys? I thought he got them in like 2014 or so.

    2. dissociative subjackET

      is that the mealymouthed scammer who promises a “service”, baits his marks on for months then vanishes… thus actually saving lives in the end?

      just more twilight zone. people think they’re reading fiction when they see headlines about it. you have to be living it to believe, nay, know it could and does happen.

      non-professional observation is that it’s people whose developmental years were nannied by bottom of the barrel saturday afternoon movies. they almost appear to be using those movies as a script for what they’re now doing in real life.

  3. rip

    So there is a real conflict between the right to free speech (1st amendment in the US) and the right for societies to not be harmed by free speech.

    Perhaps it is a quandary that has no solution other than total control or total anarchy. Perhaps the concept of a cooperative society will always have these battle with winners and losers. Perhaps humankind will never be content.

    1. bill

      Generally “free societies” limit freedoms by making certain things illegal (with freedom-stripping penalties like prison), when one person’s freedoms infringe upon another’s. For example, my freedom to do what I want is limited by a law that says I can’t murder (because murder infringes upon another person’s freedom to be alive). The same principle applies to less extreme examples, like the freedom to life one’s life more or less unharassed, not merely the freedom to be technically alive.

      Why would they do this? Because anarchy quickly becomes living in fear, and living in fear isn’t freedom at all… There has to be some amount of order which means some amount of rule-following, or society just melts down. The trick is to find the right balance between restriction and freedom. Societies seem to tend to head off toward one extreme or the other. I believe this is because people are inherently evil, not inherently good at heart. Yet there must be something good, or there’d be nothing but chaos and ruin worldwide.

    2. Bob

      In my view the right to free speech trumps everything else, too many people died fighting to preserve that right and it is vital to maintain that right whether we like what is being said or not.

      No amount of speech can actually harm anyone, people simply need to develop the emotional maturity to control their reactions to what they hear.

      Having said that, inciting to violence or repression against anyone for any reason is not covered by free speech. That is always a crime.

      Also allowing these groups to openly speak their vitriol means we know who they are, banning them won’t stop them from saying these things, it will simply drive them underground.

      1. JimV

        Freedom of speech does not extend to yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater when there is no such threat, nor for incitement to riot, commit theft/larceny or murder, and should not be a viable or legitimate defense for ‘swatting’ any innocent person(s).

        1. J G

          Say you do yell “fire” in a crowded theater. What’s the difference between being prosecuted for that or being prosecuted for manslaughter because of the several folks that got trampled in the exodus? There’s no need to prohibit the speech if there is an appropriate punishment for any consequence of it.

          1. Joe

            Because intent and attempt are still criminally liable.

            If, in your opinion, the speech inciting the criminal act should not be punished because the criminal act has a punishment…. then what happens if that attempt fails. Is it not still “attempt to cause death”?

            Yelling fire, whether in a crowded theater in hope of causing a dangerous stampede, or with authority at a firing squad pointed at a group of innocent civilians…. there should be criminal consequences to the intent and attempt of that speech.
            Even if the resultant action fails.

            It’s like defending an attempted murderer, because the person survived. This is why we have laws making “attempted” crime illegal. Inciting criminal behavior with “free speech” may be one step removed from the successful criminal act, but it deserves consequence as well.

      2. Jon Marcus

        “No amount of speech can actually harm anyone”

        Tell that to the widow and children of Andrew Finch, who died as a result of the swatting you claim is harmless free speech. Or tell that to the soldiers who would die if I reveal the timetable and defenses of their troop ship. Or the woman hiding from an abusive spouse when I reveal her location. Or a thousand other example of real, deadly harm that can be caused by speech.

        Free speech has real costs that must be weighed and balanced against its very real and substantial benefits. Their are excellent arguments to be made in defense of free speech. “It can’t harm anyone” is not one of them.

      3. Instax

        Believing that free speech means anyone can say anything they want at any time shows a grammar school understanding of the concept. Free speech simply means that the government cannot preemptively restrict your political views. It does NOT mean that there can (or should) be no consequences for speech that causes harm to others.

        Free speech trumps everything? Hardly. My and others right to stay alive trumps your right to call for our murders.

    3. A guy

      “So there is a real conflict between the right to free speech (1st amendment in the US) and the right for societies to not be harmed by free speech.”

      No, there is not. Death threats, false reporting, and harassment are all criminal offences. They are not, never have been, and never will be protected by freedom of speech. This should be obvious to *any* sensible human being anywhere on the planet. Freedom of speech doesn’t not and is not meant to protect clear and obvious crimes. Any suggestion to the contrary is just pure nonsense, blatantly stupid. Only a fucking psychopath can see these things and think: “oh yeah, that’s freedom of speech!”. And this is coming from someone who is rarely this categorical about anything. It’s truly this obvious. And the seething disgruntle teenagers (in age or spirit) who *anonymously* roam these sites know very well that what they’re doing is wrong, that’s why they hide. They are not using their freedom of speech to express their political opinion, they are trying to restrict other people’s freedom of speech, hence the (un)surprising number of journalists in that list.

      1. Joe

        Yeah… It seem that many “freedoms” granted by our Constitution are simply misunderstood. I would not be surprised if 95% of the population just doesn’t know what freedoms they have. They don’t know what the Constitution actually says, couldn’t explain it accurately, and wouldn’t understand the intent behind them anyway.

        Sometimes they under-estimate their freedoms, but far more often, they over-estimate.

        Ask most pro-2nd amendment people what a regulated militia is… and they might say they’ve heard of it, then dismiss it away as irrelevant.
        Ask most 1st amendment activists… and they won’t know what it means to have “Congress making no law to abridge” even means.

        And most Americans probably think the US Constitution is a set of laws. Or even that the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) are a set of laws.
        Nope. Just a framework for how to make laws and a measure for existing laws.

        So consequences for “free speech” isn’t banned directly by the Constitution. The Constitution cannot really do that. It can only really prevent such restrictive laws from being passed or striking down existing ones.

        As a result of the Constitution being a framework, not law. There are MANY, MANY restrictions to the nebulous concept of “free speech”.

        1. Betsy Ross

          Joe, the US Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” It is not just a framework, it is the supreme law of the land upon which all other laws must follow.

          “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

          1. Joe

            Yes, in that sense. Supreme Law, is correct. But not the same definition of law I am talking about.

    4. Dustin

      I think it does have a solution. The issues around speech are tractable, but those who engage with them have to do so with integrity and an understanding of the principles and facts involved. It is better to talk of ‘expression’ rather than ‘speech’ given that is the expression of ideas that is really what is protected. The physical act of speaking itself is only one mode of expression. Human beings have biological factors that come into play with their ability to process certain forms of expression in certain contexts. These biological factors can make it so that some acts of expression don’t simply express ideas, but can amount to coercion.

      Consider the classic case of shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. The problem is not that people have some particular limitation that prevents them from dealing with the concept of burning theaters rationally. The expression of the idea is not the problem. The problem is created by the biological facts of human brains. When survival is (and this is critically important, no words are being used unnecessarily) imminently and believably threatened, the capacity of a human being to function normally is fundamentally impaired. In this case, the speech is not ‘speech’. It is not an expression of an idea. It is a direct act of coercion on the part of the ‘speaker’ exploiting the human vulnerabilities of the listener.

      One can protect the free expression of ideas, which is critical (especially for wrong and ‘bad’ ideas) with principled consistency if what is expression and what is not is understood. This understanding does not enable stopping the expression of ‘bad’ ideas to be justified, which bothers those who want to censor. It also disables the abusive use of ‘speech’ to incite riots (human beings also have a biological limitation which severely degrades their ability to reason when in social situations) or use other coercive tactics to manipulate people, which bothers those who rely upon that sort of manipulation to promote their views. So it doesn’t serve those without integrity to adopt this understanding.

      Censors make the mistake of blaming the expression of ideas rather than the audiences acceptance of the ideas, and imagine that they can take the responsibility of judging and making determinations away from the audience. Even assuming a perfect censor, with clairvoyant sight of the future and total control over all communication, the need to decide what is accepted will always remain inside the mind of each individual and the responsibility of dealing with information and navigating the less immediate biological limitations which we all bear (tendencies toward tribalism, believing what we wish to be true, favoritism, etc) will always be one which can only be handled personally. I think it is beneficial to look to the past and consider what those with power would have done as society made beneficial changes if they had the ability to decide which ideas could be expressed – or look at the cases where they did indeed have that power and used it. The German government, for instance, banned the Nazi newspaper after the Beer Hall Putsch. It served to launch the fledgling party into the spotlight, and played into their narrative of oppression. We have no reason to believe modern efforts can or will be more beneficial than they could be destructive.

  4. The Sunshine State

    Carey Holzman is a fake story teller looking for attention and or clout chasing

  5. Phil

    I can tell you why VOX and CNN were targeted. Probably because of their incessant false reporting of ‘unnamed sources’ and their terribly liberal and CONSISTENT Anti-Trump crusade.

    1. Tim

      So it’s okay to dox someone if you disagree with their politics. Gotcha.

      1. pluto13

        Don’t confuse explaining with condoning. No one said it was “OK.” His logic rather makes sense.

        People have grievances. They act on them, sometimes violently. The more you deny the existence of the grievance, and especially the legitimacy of it, the more violent they get.

        For some reason, no one seems to understand this.

        1. SeymourB

          Wait a second. You can’t deny the legitimacy of someone’s opinion? If I say the moon is made out of swiss cheese, nobody can deny the legitimacy of that opinion?

          Some opinions are simply wrong and can be proven as such. Whataboutism is not a valid philosophy.

        2. NickDanger

          Ah yes, the “you need to coddle the neo-nazis, otherwise it’s your fault when they do bad things” argument.

          Also, WHAT legitimacy? They’re so caught up in their mindless Us vs Them fanboyism that merely reporting on anything they don’t like is seen as “bias.”

    2. Stratocaster

      Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it “false reporting”. Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham lie every day on their shows. Even if one admits to the “false reporting” trope, does that mean the victims DESERVE to be shot by the police in a SWATting incident?

    3. Jeff

      Wow, yet neglecting to mention the daily “alternative facts” or blatant lies thrown or tweeted out on a daily basis by Trump.

      He’s the President and I respect that. What I do not respect is his bullying attitude whenever someone does not agree with him or his having to always be right. He’s the President of the entire United States, not the dictator he wants to be. Threatening or bullying your way to get what you want will fail in the end.

      1. Phil's Dad

        Get back to kitchen and make me a sammich, woman!

  6. Dennis

    Hmm, let me guess, the “fair and balanced” channel doesn’t get swatted, hah?

      1. Another Dennis

        Well, threats and physical protests are NOT swatting, which is sending armed SWAT teams on false reports, and endangering the targets of a police SWAT raid.

        Get real.

        1. The 3rd Dennis

          I’d like to add the fact that protests typically don’t carry a chance of someone being killed like in swatting. Brian linked an article of the Kansas man that was innocently killed — that’s just one story. That (sadly) isn’t the only occurrence and probably won’t be the last.

  7. Michael

    Neo-NAZI’s are NOT far RIGHT nor ALT right… their just WRONG.
    I’m a far right Christian and RACISM is the furthest thing from FAR RIGHT.
    RACISM/Neo-Naziism is part of a Humanistic Darwinistic Cult.
    The term RIGHT originated from the Bible.
    Ecclesiastes 10:2. “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.”

    1. peter

      The political usage of “left” and “right” dates from the time of the French revolution.

      Although “right” is used in the Bible, that’s not in the political sense.

      1. Gunter Königsmann

        I was always taught that right and left sat at these positions in the parliament of the Weimar Republic.
        What I don’t understand is why people tend to adopt all ideas from one of these sides instead of making their own thoughts.

    2. Readership1


      First, alt-right, far right, and supremacist groups do not overlap. They don’t mean the same thing. The author errs in using the terns interchangeably.

      Second, Neo-nazis have more in common with Antifa and the left wing than they do with alt-right or far right groups.

      Third, right and left are being misused here. (Michael got it correctly).

      The right acknowledges that there is a God and that he’s given us inalienable rights that cannot be limited by any government or denied by men. Thus, the right is against violence and harassment. The right recognizes that God made us all in his image, thus the right condemns discrimination.

      The left denies God, thus denying God-given rights, thus permitting discrimination and violence on other people. This is what fascists, racists, and radicals cling to for their Neo-nazi groups, their Antifa, and their lefist hate. Because they deny God, they lack the humility to reject racial supremacy theories and bigotry.

      1. Michael

        You are 100% correct! Thank you for your intelligent and educated words. If only our schools would teach history, again.

        1. Joe

          That is not history. That is interpretive opinion of scripture. Not suitable to be taught to children in a public school. Private/Religious school, sure.

      2. Joe

        There is a lot of spin that goes on when cognitive dissonance takes over. You can be a compassionate conservative “right” and still completely disagree with with others on the same “right” like Fascists. The Left is also fragmented with different groups. Many leftist liberals are also very much religious Christians. The right doesn’t have a monopoly on religion.

        No, Neo-Nazis are NOT like Antifa when it comes to a one dimensional political spectrum. They are both opposites on the spectrum of politics, but since they are both on their respective extremes, their tactics seem similar. Extremism breeds violence regardless of the side.
        Do not confuse tactics with political ideology.

        KKK, good god-fearing Christians, are a good example of the dynamic politics that cannot be explained in one dimensional notions of “left and right”.

        It is tempting to label anyone you disagree with, as “other”. Whether it is other race, other class, or other political side. So Readership1 and Micheal are merely creating, or falling for, a narrative that makes them sleep easier… because those bad evil people, are on the “other side”.

      3. Brian Fiori (AKA The Dean)

        “First, alt-right, far right, and supremacist groups do not overlap. ”

        What? No overlap whatsoever? That’s one of the most preposterous statements I’ve seen among Kreb’s comments. If you were to construct a Venn diagram with “alt-right”, “far right” and “supremacist, you honestly think there would be no overlap in the circles of these three groups?

        Use your brain!

    3. A guy

      I have bad news for you: alt-right, far-right, and neo-nazi all describe the same group of people (essentially: facists). If you disagree with their fundamental views (all the replacement bull***t, fundamental differences in personality/ability among “races”, that your race is under attack, so on and so forth) then maybe you’re not alt-right after all. If you do agree, I have more bad news for you: you’re a nazi. Not because you identify with alt-right or any other denomination (or none of them at all), but because that’s what being a nazi is. If you think like a nazi, act like a nazi, and mingle with nazis… I mean, it doesn’t get more nazi than that. Btw, it saddens (and scares) me that I have to even explain this. It’s not a nuanced issue *at* *all*.

      1. Michael

        That’s a postmodern definition, meaning you’r defining it however you want to. The origin of the terms Right/Left came from Old Testament scripture. Nothing on the “right” is racism because that goes 100% against everything Father/Son/Holy Spirit. Anyone who KNOWS Christ knows this to be TRUE.

        1. Catwhisperer

          Really Michael? I’m a Christian, read the bible and am curious is you could quote where in the Bible the “origin of the terms Right/Left” are. Can you cite me a passage please?

          Some of what is being said here about the right vs. left appears to be nothing but transference, as most dictatorial/totalitarian societies have been associated with the far right politically. Lets see, Pinochet, Papa Doc Duvalier, Idi Amin, Kim Jong-un, his dad, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. Which one of those where leftists (i.e. Fidel Castro, Manuel Noriega, Hugo Chavez, Nicolás Maduro, etc.)?

          1. Joe

            Yeah, there is a lot of cognitive dissonance leading to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

            “If they’ve done evil things, they were never truly ‘on the right’?”

            And it’s contemporary judgement on acts that were completely legal at the time, and probably considered moral at the time too.

            Slavery, rape, and even murder was condoned in the Old Testament… And even slavery was “justified” by the right wing dixiecrats of the South.

            Funny how Democrats weren’t always on the left on every platform. And Republicans weren’t always conservative either. Left/Right is a one dimensional, and poor way to describe the dynamic and complex politics of individuals.

        2. Joe

          That is revisionist and cherry picking.
          I know it is tempting to make everything black and white, binary, polar, left/right. But that isn’t reality.

          You have to completely ignore all the racism, misogyny, bigotry, megalomania, murder, rape and slavery of the Old Testament. If that is “right”…. I don’t want to be.

          Many Churches completely ignore the qualities that are unacceptable in contemporary society. As homosexuals are accepted in society, the Church has, again, begun to ignore (or reinterpret) the scriptures to be accepting.

            1. Degree at Google University

              They are the “well… actually” type of person that argues just to argue.

              Person: “Nice day, eh, Joe?”
              Joe: “Well… actually, it is no longer day. By definition, ‘day’ means the time of light between one night and the next. Essentially, by cognitive dissonance, you are astrologically presuming it is, in fact, still day, whereas, by the evidence-based Merriam-Webster dictionary, one could hardly begin to fathom that our ‘day’ has eluded from us and triumphed into what we call the ‘evening’. I suppose by your lack of corroborated reply, you are unacquainted with what the term ‘day’ entails, unlike myself, who has studied this definition arduously.”

              1. Joe

                Was Readership or Michael merely commenting a benign comment like “good day”? No.

                It is funny how I rebut their long, detailed argument, with one of my own… and your only defense is that I responded and wouldn’t let you have your diatribe go unchallenged?

                Letting nonsense and rhetoric go without arguing is a big reason why these people think they are right all the time. That sense of superiority needs to be challenged by argument… and apparently some people are not used to seeing any disagreement.

    4. NickDanger

      Neo-NAZI’s are NOT far RIGHT nor ALT right… their just WRONG.
      I’m a far right Christian and RACISM is the furthest thing from FAR RIGHT.

      Yeah, no – that’s not actually how words work…Hint: words can & do mean different things in different contexts; “right” in this context does not refer to “correctness,” but to their political leanings. And in that sense, then yeah, neo-nazis & other racists nationalists are overwhelmingly on the right side of the political spectrum.

      RACISM/Neo-Naziism is part of a Humanistic Darwinistic Cult.

      lol, nothing says “intellectual honesty” quite like mindlessly parroting tired, widely-debunked creationist apologetics…

  8. illumina23

    Something needs to change in the emergency response system so that swatting is no longer effective.

    1. Bill

      No, something needs to change in the phone systems to make spoofing impossible.

      1. A(nonymou)S

        +1! This might finally put an end to all the robocalls I get too.

  9. Ajax

    Note to Michael: your characterization of Ecclesiastes 10:2 is not the view of many. That language is generally not viewed as related to the modern usage of the terms right and left as being indicative of political conservatism or liberalism, respectively. Such labeling had its roots in France prior to the French Revolution, where conservative members of the legislative assembly sat to the right of the king, while the liberal members sat to the king’s left.

  10. Ron G.

    Yes indeed. LE needs to put down the doughnuts and get this crap shut down.

    1. instig8r

      Still mad about that last ticket, eh, Ron?

  11. Notme

    Nice piece of reporting!
    It’s always best to shine the light into this darkness.

  12. Nobby Nobbs

    Thanks for reporting this, Brian!
    Let’s hope this gets the law enforcement folks to take this stuff seriously.
    There’s enough things they are asked to do that aren’t clear-cut Good-Guy actions, maybe they’ll take this opportunity to go after 100% Bad Guys.

  13. JCitizen

    “secret Facebook group” – isn’t that an oxymoron?

  14. Matthias Urlichs

    Minor nit: no they did not “take responsibility”. They might have claimed to have done it. Taking responsibility for something means owning up to having done the deed and facing the consequences. These guys do not know what these words even mean.

  15. UrDishonest

    Freedom of the press doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. Most of these people are activists posing as journalists.

    1. NoU

      What would be appropriate consequence? Swatting?

      1. Oonga Loonga

        Appropiate consequences are those that have been applied to all traitors in all parts of the globe at all times, soon to be fashionable again.

        1. Makroth

          Traitors? For fighting back against a fascist regime? Nah. I call that “patriotic”.

          1. LOL

            You win the dumbest comment of the week award

  16. Chip Doughlas

    Typically where there is smoke there is fire. Could it be that all of these so called “journalists” are not innocent? Perhaps some are nothing more than propagandists for the far left. CNN immediately comes to mind.

    1. JimV

      And some are enabling apologists for the fascists…like you, perhaps.

      1. Chip Douglas

        Actually JimV, you don’t understand politics.
        I’ve come to expect that from the left so allow me to school you.
        On the far left you have Communism, total tyranny, the ultimate government that you are in favor of that makes ALL decisions for you. Regardless of what you think you know, ANTIFA, BLM and other organizations that CNN loves are all about government implementing their version of “justice”.
        On the far right you have total freedom whether good or evil, complete anarchy, no government at all.
        This is why the balance is in the center with as little government as possible to maintain the maximum of amount of freedom, anything less is oppression, much like a king or a dictator

        1. Joe

          Easy there Cable Boy… it is you who is completely ignorant of politics.

          It is not really possible to fit everyone on a neat little, one dimensional line. There are extremes on both sides and in multiple dimensions. Try as you will to cherry pick the bad people and place them into a convenient bucket of “the left”… and then ignore any inconvenient evil-doers who are on “the right”…. it isn’t reality.

          Also, what you describe is closer to Libertarianism and Anarchism, which is an offshoot independent of the right… but certainly NOT the popular ideal of the majority of conservatives… who are very much pro big government for defense and other things. There are pot smoking hippie liberals who also align with some of the Libertarian ideals too.
          Meanwhile, many religious conservatives love to see a big government run as a theocracy in accordance with scripture.
          Iran is a right wing example, which of course many people would want to distance them from the Christian “right” because they aren’t following their religion, but an other.

          1. Chip Douglas

            From a purist point of view if you represent no government, (anarchy) on one end of a line and total power on the other end you have a true understanding of the politics of power. You can split hairs about who falls out where but it still remains a sliding scale from zero to 100%. The power hungry label each other in an attempt to curry favor with the masses.
            There are no benevolent dictators; they are in it for themselves.
            Government is a necessary evil to prevent evil men from preying on the weak, but at the same time it needs to be limited lest evil men take total power and oppress the people. The founders understood this which is why our government is formed around three equal but separate branches of government. That concept is under assault today as evil men attempt to circumvent the system to consolidate power. There is no left/right the way you and many people interpret politics. This only serves to confuse those of limited intellect and causes the taking of sides.
            Your lack of understanding of scripture also adds to your confusion.

            1. Joe

              The funny thing about scripture is… anyone can claim to have some deeper understanding. That their understanding is correct, others are wrong.
              There are enough pages that cover so much, and with the format of book, chapter, verse… it is quite easy to cherry pick the parts you want to make whatever narrative you want. The scriptures haven’t changed, but man’s interpretation can change. Once popular parts fall out of favor as the times change. Different denominations and individuals emphasis different parts along the way.

              Regarding government, again, that is your subjective opinion on how you would like to be governed. No one dimensional scale could possibly encompass the whole of diversity of this country. Whether the left/right scale we’ve been discussing, or the 0%/100% of government power you are talking about.

              1. Chip Douglas

                Concerning government…
                No amount of equivocating on your part changes the basic premise, but I will acknowledge that many ignorant and or misinformed people think they know the outcome of their political decisions because they are completely aligned with one party or the other. They are always amazed when “promises” are deliberately broken by their preferred politicians. Not all politicians have integrity, in fact, it would seem very few do.
                On scripture…
                Scripture says God does not change. (Men do) There is no grey area in scripture. With God it is either good or evil because he alone is good and he is unchanging. This is scriptural. The term “situational ethics” was coined to describe and allow for an act to be justified that was contrary to God’s law. Satan was the originator of that concept in the Garden of Eden. Men have utilized it ever sense to excuse their disobedience to God.
                Unfortunately, not every person who says he represents God or his will, does. Every man is an individual. This explains the evolution of scripture interpretation over time by various denominations. When and if evil men infiltrate an organization there will be consequences.
                There is an absolute and it is God’s word. In 2Pe 1:20  it says: no scripture is of a private interpretation. In other words, their is only one correct meaning. This says not everyone is right. Someone is wrong and because God does not change, what is written in the OT is consistent with what is written in the NT and not subject to a new interpretation because the culture has changed, or a man considers himself to be more “enlightened”. In fact, scripture says men will call evil good, and good evil. There will be false prophets in the last days. There is literally no scenario that has not been covered in scripture and it is now playing out before our eyes. There are many opinions on God and everlasting life and yet scripture says:
                Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 
                Mat 7:14  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 

                1. Joe

                  Quoting scripture to prove the infallibility of said scripture?
                  That is the biggest problem… everyone, even with wildly different viewpoints can and will interpret the scriptures differently… then prove their assertions, with more scripture. They can do it with the Koran too. Of course that scripture also says it is the inerrant word of God.
                  So if this is the basis of your moral and ethical worldview… then it is tainted by that single biggest flaw. And this explains perfectly and logically, how you can still be using the same scriptural source as the people who murder, slavery, rape, etc hundreds or thousands of years ago.

                  1. Chip Douglas

                    You didn’t say whether you even acknowledge there is a God much less being a believer. I am thoroughly familiar with your argument and it is a convenient cop-out for unbelievers when dealing with what I am talking about, the absolute truth of scripture. The Bible is not multiple choice and there is only one correct answer. As I said, it is not open to multiple interpretations. Only one interpretation will be accurate. All the rest will be wrong in one way or another. You are free to agree to disagree. Then there is this which explains your statement earlier:
                    1Co 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 
                    “You have to completely ignore all the racism, misogyny, bigotry, megalomania, murder, rape and slavery of the Old Testament. If that is “right”…. I don’t want to be.”

                    1. Joe

                      Again, you show the hypocrisy.
                      “it is not open to multiple interpretations”
                      Yet, that is what you and countless others do… provide your own interpretation.
                      Then arrogantly claim your interpretation is the only correct one.
                      This explains why there are so many denominations, splinters, and sects. Even completely distinct religions share common scripture, of which they have wildly differing interpretations.

                      Also, trying to prove scripture true, by quoting scripture, is not logical or reasoned argument… it is circular. But of course, you will just turn to your interpretation of scripture to demonize using logic or rational thought.

    2. HouseRocker

      You are correct there are many individuals that call themselves journalists that spend most of their time lying. It seems that the largest employer of those liars is FoxNews.

  17. Jim

    Good job Krebs. Interestingly, I see in the comments, police training, and manpower issues. And procedures, and silencing the press. Most interesting. That’s been done before, the result was yellow press and the suspensions of liberties of the public. Only powerful people, ie: crooks survived. The press are the people who report on happenings that we should know about. Yes, they are opinionated, obnoxious, buffons, but they are needed to keep everyone informed.
    The other one, policeman, to send out one or two to scout a situation, they have been there and done that before. That’s why they are in platoon size groups now. The old safety in numbers. Training instills the movements, a cool head slows the outcome, introducing unpredictable results. They like predicable results.
    Like, I said, keep up the good work

  18. Oonga Loonga

    Maybe if journalists weren’t such liars and lapdogs to evil powers they wouldn’t get the rope TDOTR.

    1. JimV

      Perhaps if it wasn’t brainwashed, yours might actually be capable of an intelligent remark, too.

    2. HouseRocker

      You are correct there are many individuals that call themselves journalists that spend most of their time lying. It seems that the largest employer of those liars is FoxNews.

      1. welper

        I suppose you believe everything you see on CNN. Is that right?

        The beam in your own eye, brother.

        The issue is not whether journalists “lie.” Of course they do. The question is whether you can perceive it, especially when you love the lie.

        Anyone that perceives propaganda on only the “left” or the “right” is not perceiving it at all, and is completely deceived.

  19. Tony Pelliccio

    What I see as a big issue vis a vis the swatting thing is a flaw in telecom systems that makes it trivial to pass along CLID and BTN info that’s not what is reality. It all has to do when Ma Bell invented CLID she trusted her children. Now anyone can spoof CLID info.

    1. Chip Douglas

      I don’t know if my last reply took but I will repeat it just in case.

      No one could have foreseen this abuse. You are right to a point but it is now being dealt with under a mandate from the FCC. See below…

      T 202.457.3120
      C 202 262 7479

      AT&T Services, Inc.
      1120 20
      Street NW
      Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036

      Joan Marsh
      Executive Vice President
      Regulatory & State External Affairs

      November 19, 2018

      The Honorable Ajit V. Pai
      Federal Communications Commission
      445 Twelfth Street, SW
      Washington, DC 20554

      Re: AT&T’s Timeline for Implementation of SHAKEN/STIR; Call
      Authentication Trust Anchor, WC Docket No. 17-97

      Dear Chairman Pai:

      On behalf of AT&T,
      I write in response to your November 5, 2018 letter to John Donovan,
      CEO of AT&T Communications, in which you expressed support for our commitment to
      combating the scourge of illegal robocalls, including through the early implementation of caller
      ID authentication technology. Under your leadership, the Commission continues to be a valuable
      partner of industry in the development and implementation of the technical protocols known as
      Signature-based Handling of Asserted Information Using toKENs and the Secure Telephone
      Identity Revisited (“SHAKEN/STIR”). AT&T is fully committed to this innovation and has
      played a leading role in its development, but significant work remains to stand-up SHAKEN/STIR
      across the industry. As your letters to AT&T and other service providers reflect, it will take
      enormous commitments on the part of each company for SHAKEN/STIR to achieve its potential
      and restore consumers’ confidence that they can answer their telephones without being subjected
      to illegal robocalls. AT&T, as it has done since the 2016 Robocall Strike Force, will continue to
      lead the way, and we thank you and your fellow commissioners for encouraging all service
      providers to do the same.

      As requested, enclosed please find a timeline detailing AT&T’s plans for the deployment
      of SHAKEN/STIR. The timeline includes implementation benchmarks for testing, certain network

      AT&T Services, Inc. files this letter on behalf of AT&T Mobility and its wireline
      operating affiliates (collectively, “AT&T”).

      buildout, the exchange of certificates, as well as call-signature display capability. The timeline
      necessarily is dependent, in significant part, on factors beyond AT&T’s control, including
      coordination with other voice service providers. For example, AT&T’s current target of
      exchanging signed calls with one service provider in the third quarter of next year is based on
      preliminary discussions initiated earlier this month. The aggressive timetable the parties are
      considering, as reflected in the timeline, thus could encounter delays.

      By the same token, the timeline does not detail all of the concurrent activity, both internal
      and external to AT&T, to expand and enhance the capabilities of SHAKEN/STIR. Industry’s
      ongoing work to develop best practices for the implementation of SHAKEN/STIR for business
      VoIP (Enterprise) calls is one such example. AT&T is committed to signing business VoIP calls
      consistent with those practices once they are available.

      AT&T also is considering various alternatives for delivering call-signature displays to
      consumers, including proposals to leverage the enhanced capabilities of AT&T Call Protect to
      deliver additional value to customers who subscribe to that service. At a minimum, beginning in
      the third quarter of 2019, AT&T intends to have the ability to deliver displays for end-to-end
      VoLTE wireless calls, and currently plans to provide displays to customers.

      As the Commission is aware, the precise timing and format for consumer displays remain
      a topic of discussion and debate among stakeholders. While AT&T is committed to delivering the
      benefits of SHAKEN/STIR to its customers as soon as reasonably possible, we nevertheless urge
      caution to ensure that the understandable enthusiasm to implement as quickly as possible does not
      ultimately undermine the long-term effectiveness of SHAKEN/STIR. AT&T believes that careful,
      intentional planning regarding consumer call-signature displays is critical to ensure that service
      providers do not inadvertently miscommunicate the meaning or significance of call signatures (or
      the lack of such signature) through their consumer displays. More specifically, AT&T believes
      that the Commission and industry should work together to evaluate and, wherever possible,
      manage consumer expectations regarding the call-signature displays that service providers present,
      particularly in the early days of SHAKEN/STIR implementation. Absent appropriate planning
      and coordination, AT&T is concerned that, as implementation ramps up, if consumers receive call-
      signature displays for only a small number of legitimate calls (while the remaining legitimate calls
      go unsigned), consumers could view SHAKEN/STIR as ineffective, and even disregard the call-
      signature displays. It thus is critical that industry, in partnership with the Commission and other

      Likewise, while the timeline reflects that AT&T’s initial implementation of
      SHAKEN/STIR will involve the manual exchange of certificates, AT&T will implement
      automated certificate exchange once the STI-PA/STI-CA functions are available.

      appropriate stakeholders, consider these important issues before call-signature displays are
      delivered to end users. AT&T will continue ongoing discussions and collaboration with the ATIS
      SIP Forum Task Force and other implementing service providers and stakeholders to develop and
      launch call-signature displays in a manner that is transparent to consumers.

      Please contact the undersigned should you or staff have questions regarding this letter.

      Respectfully submitted,

      Joan Marsh
      Executive Vice President
      Regulatory & State External Affairs
      AT&T Communications


      cc: The Honorable Michael O’Rielly
      The Honorable Brendan Carr
      The Honorable Jessica Rosenworcel
      Eric Burger
      Patrick Webre
      Deborah Salons

      Nevertheless, as described above, AT&T will be ready to begin providing call-signature
      displays to customers.
      © 2018 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T Proprietary (Restricted) Only for use by authorized individuals within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution. Technology Strategy Group Opinion Only. Subject to contradiction or alternate evaluation by other
      4Q18 1Q19 2Q19 3Q19 4Q19
      Initiate SHAKEN/STIR-capable network buildout
      Conduct field testing – Comcast
      Commence lab testing – service provider 2
      Complete Phase 1 of SHAKEN/STIR-capable network buildout
      Capability to sign all AT&T-originated consumer VoIP calls
      Capability to manually exchange certificates
      Exchange signed calls – Comcast
      Commence field testing – service provider 2
      Commence lab testing – service provider 3
      Complete Phase 2 SHAKEN/STIR-capable network buildout
      Capability to sign all AT&T-originated VoLTE wireless calls
      Exchange signed calls – service provider 2
      Commence field testing – service provider 3
      Capability to initiate consumer call-signature displays
      Exchange signed calls – service provider 3
      Test/Deploy/Implement with additional providers as they become ready
      = Target Delivery Date
      = Planned

    2. Chip Douglas

      No one foresaw the problem of swatting and it would have been extremely expensive to prevent it at the time CLID was invented. Now we have more robust technology to stop it and swatting is just one of the things that is being addressed.
      Search Telco responses to “shaken/stir” The solution is about to be implemented in the next couple of years…

    3. Readership1

      Swatting has little to no relation to caller ID spoofing.

      The miscreants call non-emergency phone numbers and get transferred to police dispatchers by tricking people. Or the miscreants call a deaf relay service and have them contact police dispatchers.

      In both cases, the swatter just uses a disposable prepaid phone or a VOIP service, so spoofing isn’t an issue. Instead, almost all swatting one from calls that have been transferred to a dispatcher, rather than a direct call.

      The issue is training of dispatchers and police to recognize that there hasn’t been a factual bomb threat in the US and most of Europe for decades. Dispatchers and police also need to recognize that perpetrators of hostage situations and homicides rarely call 911 themselves, threatening more crime.

      And they could be trained to recognize that calls matching more than one suspicious characteristic are likely pranks.

      With that knowledge, police could, for example, send just 2 police to a call like that, to cautiously and skeptically investigate if further escalation is necessary, rather than sending a SWAT team as an initial response. This would greatly reduce the risk to the public and wasted taxes.

      1. Chip Douglas

        I disagree with you.
        Caller ID spoofing is a part of the problem. The elimination of it may not solve every instance of swatting but it will go a long way toward shutting down all but the most determined swatters.
        If it goes through a non-emergency number and is transferred, all will have the same access to authentication before it is transferred. If you read the letter it indicates VOIP is also being addressed.
        “Shaken/stirred” is about authenticating CID across the PSTN. If the integrity of CID can be maintained there will be less instances of swatting. If the call does not come up as authenticated this is a clear indicator that the call may be fraudulent and this includes the use of burner phones that fall into their own category as “suspect”.

        1. Readership1

          Chip, you can disagree all you want. It doesn’t change facts.

          Police and dispatcher training is the flaw exploited by swatters, not the caller ID system. The militaristic responses are the problem that attract more occurrences. This is why swatting is so much more common in the US than any other country.

          It has nothing to do with the US phone system.

          1. Chip Douglas


            I acknowledge that mistakes are made by humans, no one is denying that, but in an environment where CID is NEVER assured to be accurate a 3rd party answering point will transfer every call because they don’t know which one is real and which one is not and they are not authorized to make that decision anyway.
            If you have ever been in a large PSAP processing 911 calls, (and I have) depending on the time of day and or the size of the city being served calls are non-stop and sometimes backup waiting to be answered. They will put calls they assess as non-emergency on hold to handle the next call because it might be a real emergency. In that kind of chaos it is not hard to slip something by. Now, even IF the person doing the transferring suspected a call to be a hoax, staying on the line to introduce the call loses precious seconds. Dispatchers are monitored and timed and that also plays a part. Authenticated CID would make a big difference, especially if they would incorporate a call rejection feature for calls that are not authenticated. This is part of the proposal of”shaken/stirred” for normal end users to combat CID spoofing of robo-calls. Whether they will do that for a PSAP is unknown at this time.
            Finally, Even in 2016 NENA recognized CID played a part in swatting. This is a scheduled talk from an educational conference on E-911 training and education:
            Securing 9-1-1 | An Introduction to SWATting & the Mechanics Behind It | 137
            Mark Fletcher, ENP – Avaya; John Chiaramonte, ENP – Mission Critical Partners, Inc; Christopher Carver, ENP – NENA
            SWATting plagues PSAPs nationwide. NSI cell phones, caller ID spoofing services, and plain social engineering all enable bad actors to prey on unsuspecting call takers and catch them off guard. A real recipe for a friendly-fire scenario, this session educates call takers on how they can identify and combat these types of calls, while continuing to provide emergency services to those in legitimate need.

          2. timeless

            A large part of the problem may be police response. And some of the problem may be stress on PSAP operators.

            From memory, proper 911 calls into PSAP don’t suffer from the caller-ID spoofing that consumers experience. They do suffer from TTY-Relay spoofing, and they do suffer from call-transferring or other forms of information laundering.

            But, perhaps the bigger problem is the sheer quantity of weapons in the USA (and Canada).

            If there were fewer guns, there would be, hopefully, less need for police to go in “guns blazing”.

  20. left leaning centerist

    some of these comments, just wow! if you cant use intelligent arguments to defend your bigotry. just defend swatters I guess.

  21. noggin

    “Neo-nazi” is one of these “conditioned trigger” words. The reader is supposed to immediately dismiss the possibility that anyone that engages in these activities has a valid grievance.

    No wonder they resort to violence.

    I encourage the media, especially independent media that have more latitude in the matter, to examine the terms they use, rather than just parrot the existing Establishment propaganda regime. If you cannot trust people to think critically about a group, an action, or an idea without this kind of biased framing, then you’ve already lost the argument.

    1. Joe

      If they call themselves “Neo-Nazis”… then it’s not the journalist’s fault. They have done it to themselves… they wanted to be associated with Nazis, but just “newer”.

      Not every group uses this name, no. But they still march with the same banners, chants, and ideology.

      We know their grievance. They take on the moniker and general platform of a well known group from 90-100 years ago. Geopolitical discourse is not their aim… as it has all been discussed a century ago.

      1. noggin

        Most groups and individuals that are labeled in this way — e.g. Nazi, neo-nazi, fascist, white supremacist, nationalist, etc. — do not call themselves that.

        Do the group behind Doxbin call themselves “nazis?” I don’t see that claimed anywhere.

        And nothing was “discussed” a century ago. They lost a war, not an argument. As far as I can tell, no one has refuted their argument.

        It’s easy to apply a label. However, a label is not an argument. In fact, it is increasingly not even a description. It is just a cop-out.

        1. Jazzed Up

          oh, those poor misunderstood Nazis of the AtomWaffenDivision! They’re just a bunch of nice boys with guns who want to kill people. It’s all the fault of society and journalists and others for calling them names.

    2. Chris Carmichael

      “No wonder they resort to violence.”

      Seriously, my dude?

  22. Walter Pickman

    The comments posted by right-wingers here perfectly demonstrates how the fascist fifth column known as the Alt Right metastasized in the first place. It is a fact that the original Nazis were right-wing, and spent most of their time and money recruiting war veterans and hardline Catholics.

    “There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction – to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power – that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise – there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan, or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew.” — Adolf Hitler, April 12, 1922, Munich

    And anyone still denying that the Alt Right are Nazis — despite their daily use of Nazi symbols, slogans, and ideas — is a liar and a Nazi collaborator.

    1. Chip Douglas

      There is no such thing as the Alt-right. This term was coined by the left to inject fear into the weak minded. I see it worked with you. Extremists have always been with us but the people you worry about are few in number and pose no real threat to the country. Not everyone who supports president Trump or has ideas different than yours are extremists, they just don’t agree with you and your ilk. You are the kind of person people should worry about because you are running scared of imaginary boogeymen. On the other hand we have some very violent anarchists called ANTIFA and to a lesser degree BLM who unsurprisingly are embraced by the Democrat party as well as the mainstream media. Go figure?

      1. Walter Pickman

        “There is no such thing as the Alt Right.”

        You are a liar. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right

        “…but the people you worry about are few in number and pose no real threat to the country.”



        “Not everyone who supports president Trump or has ideas different than yours are extremists…”

        Did I say that? No? Then please limit your responses to what I actually say. Furthermore, since Trump has consistently behaved in a manner that is inappropriate for adults, why would any decent person still support him?

        “You are the kind of person people should worry about because you are running scared of imaginary boogeymen.”

        The FBI has recently admitted that right-wing extremists commit more than 70% of all domestic terrorism in the United States. If you are not a Nazi or a fascist, why are you running interference for them, liar? How many murders has Antifa or BLM committed compared to the white nationalists shooting up churches, mosques, synagogues, and as of this afternoon, Wal-Marts?

        1. Chip Douglas

          Well Walter, right out of the gate you reference URL’s that are known propagandists for the left. This has the affect of negating everything else you have to say because these sites push the very lies you worry about. This does not surprise me because most deluded leftists like yourself believe everything they say as the truth. I’m surprised you didn’t cite CNN or the other liberal liars. I guess they have been caught with their pants down so many times that even a fish like you won’t use them anymore.
          The FBI is being investigated as we speak for running a soft coup on POTUS and eventually the whole story will come out. Their integrity is out the window at this point as their top leadership under Obama was aligned with the left for political reasons. REAL white nationalists are few in number and when they do rear their ugly heads your preferred “news” sources run it days on end but bury or refuse to cover BLM or ANTIFA unless it is a puff piece. You can’t even get Democrats to condemn them.
          BLM was responsible for shooting 12 and the murder of 5 cops, sniper style. ANTIFA recently beat a gay reporter as he tried to cover their violence.
          A little research on the background of mass shooters almost always turns up evidence of Democrat party affiliation, but you have to get there before a leftist sympathizer alters the information.

          1. Walter Pickman

            “…right out of the gate you reference URL’s that are known propagandists for the left.”

            It’s interesting that in your last lying response, you denied that the Alt Right even exists, despite the fact that that name was coined by white nationalist Richard Spencer and has been used by Neo-Nazis and white nationalists on their own websites, 4chan threads and YouTube videos for years now. Now you cowardly try to sidestep the facts and sources presented in those articles without addressing any of them. Still playing by Goebbels’ playbook? Et tu, Chip?

            “The FBI is being investigated as we speak for running a soft coup on POTUS and eventually the whole story will come out.”

            [Citation needed]

            The police shootings in Dallas were committed by a lone wolf with no connection to BLM or any other organization. More than fifty people have been murdered in this country by far right extremists in the last decade, but I don’t expect a lying, cowardly Nazi collaborator to admit the truth. And by the way, only a bona fide idiot would fall for fake news like Gateway Pundit. Here is yet another well sourced article for you to ignore: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit

            1. Chip Douglas

              RationalWiki? Surely you jest. They are all leftists. GIGO
              You really are a fish.
              BLM is guilty of killing those cops and a leftist organization. BLM is just the next version of the black power movement.
              As for the FBI citation, you have to want to know to find it and I know that would upset your fantasy world of Trump collusion. Here it is anyway, page after page…

          2. Walter Pickman

            It also says a lot that you’re still covering for the Alt Reich two days after another white nationalist murdered twenty Americans at a Walmart in El Paso and posted his manifesto on 8chan, a notorious online hangout for neo-Nazis and racists. Here are the opening sentences of his screed:

            “In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is in response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

            If the jackboots fit, wear them, collaborator.

            1. Chip Douglas

              I’m not surprised that a deceived lying lefty like you would only supply part of the information about the El Paso shooter. Seems like he was an equal opportunity offender but by resorting to violence like most leftists do instead of peaceful means he showed his true colors. You probably don’t want to influence your far left beliefs because the truth hurts, but the links are there if you feel froggy.


              Then there was the Ohio shooter who had praise for dingbat lefty Elizabeth Warren.


              1. Walter Pickman

                Did you actually read your first link, stupid? It confirmed the white nationalist talking points that cover every single page of the El Paso shooter’s manifesto. Yet you’re still insisting that he was left-wing, thus admitting yet again that you’re a liar. If the jackboots fit…

                Also, the Dayton shooter appears to have been a complete psychopath who used the names of his classmates to compile a murder list and a rape list in high school, and who apparently fantasized about tying up women and slitting their throats. There does not appear to have been any ideological motivation for his attack, unlike the Alt Right terrorists that you cover for.

                  1. Walter Pickman

                    I’m not the one who is stupid enough to fall for obvious fake news like The Gateway Pundit. Nor am I a liar who tried to deny that the Alt Right even exists. There are conservatives who do not like the Republican party and liberals who do not like the Democrats. The El Paso shooter was a white nationalist terrorist whose biggest problem with the GOP was that they are not racist enough for him.

                    And as I already pointed out, there is no evidence of any ideological motivation for the Dayton shooter’s attack. He was a psychopath who fixated on violence, and murdered random people just for the sake of killing. If he was motivated by leftist ideology, why didn’t he attack a Republican gathering? Stop covering for a treasonous fascist fifth column.

                    1. Chip Douglas

                      You are so immersed in fake news you wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked you between the eyes. You are now ignoring any links and repeating your screed. You must think saying it often enough will cause people to believe it. I wonder where you learned that trick? Don’t tell me. I know you will just project that onto me. That’s what lying leftists do. The latest on the far left Dayton shooter is all over the news services now. Here is the latest for your enjoyment.


  23. KoSReader600000

    Both Chip Douglas and Readership1 make good points regarding the possibility of a spoofed Caller ID and/or the use of “disposable” cell phones calling non=911 numbers.

    I believe we should wait and get more information on this incident. Clearly, if the fake police calls are caller ID spoofed then those services which aid and abet caller ID spoofing should be sectioned in addition to the Swatter.

    I understand the Kansas Swatter case is mostly over and legal documents should pin point this Swatter’s exact methods. Are there any Lawyers here who can produce any evidence of Caller ID spoofing used in the Kansas Swatter mess. Which is it:

    A] Caller ID spoofing


    B] Disposable cell phones calling non-emergency numbers?

  24. KoSReader600000

    This is starting to get legally and technically complex.

    Readership1 notes Brian’s last paragraph. I have read it and there is more going on. The government mandates some type of service for people with disabilities which complicates things.

    911 or some type of call center or the ability to text 911 under the ADA is required – but exactly how is not spelled out. I still need a lawyer to comment on this odd call center-911 deal. Can police be forced to take non-verified calls under the current rules?

    “This document is part of a technical assistance program to provide State and local governments and persons with disabilities with information about the requirements of the ADA for direct, equal access to 9-1-1 for persons with disabilities who use TTYs. This guidance is an updated version of the Department of Justice’s earlier guidance entitled, “Commonly Asked Questions Regarding Telephone Emergency Services.” It explains in practical terms how the ADA’s requirements apply to 9-1-1 services, including equipment, standard operating procedures, and training, and should be useful to 9-1-1 service providers, equipment vendors, participating telephone companies, and individuals with disabilities….”-FCC


    [links bronken]

    “Next Generation 911 (NG911) Emergency Services In addition to text-to-911, there is significant work currently being done by advocates as well as numerous public safety, industry and government groups to facilitate the development of a Next Generation 911 (NG911) system by 2020. NG911 will be enabled by an interconnected system of local, regional and state emergency services Internet-Protocol (IP) networks that is capable of handling text, data, images and video from wireless and digital communications devices.” -NAD


    1. timeless

      Last I checked, the US requires 911 call delivery to phones w/o cellular service. Interestingly, the requirement for land lines w/o service to be able to make 911 calls varies by state (TIL).

      «In some western countries (like the United States and England), people can connect with an emergency number (e.g 911 or 999) even if their SIM cards are not in proper working order. Note that it’s not the SIM card, but rather the antenna in your phone, that gets you connected to a network tower. A SIM card only has the phone number and carrier info, so it’s not essential to make an emergency call. In such cases, since the SIM is dysfunctional, the emergency service center does not get the caller ID or the location of the caller, but the call can be connected.» [1]

      Note: This feature varies by country. Please don’t go to a random country and expect to be able to use a phone w/o an operator to make an emergency call. Beyond the obvious: If your phone doesn’t have bands compatible w/ the available networks, or if your phone decides to run out of power… And don’t assume that 112 [2] or 911 [3] will get you to the service you want — it varies by country *sigh*.

      Canada [4] also requires connecting 911 calls for inactive telephones.

      [1] https://www.scienceabc.com/innovation/how-can-mobile-phones-make-emergency-calls-when-theres-no-network-coverage.html
      [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112_(emergency_telephone_number)
      [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-1-1
      [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-1-1#Inactive_telephones

  25. Steve

    I am disappointed – the far right is not the only group to do this despicable act. Journalists have been doing this recently, the far left has been doing this. New York Times is attempting to dox all ICE personnel. If you condemn one you should condemn all. The far left is attempting mob rule – if you don’t agree with us then boycott… if you sell to the wrong companies, boycott – soon they will resort to violence.

    1. Joe

      That is a false equivalency.

      You are equating clear hate crimes with your own loose interpretation of “despicable acts”. That allows you to equate and condemn anyone or anything you disagree with… as the same as Nazis?

      Can you even describe what Doxxing is? I bet you have the same subjective ignorance about that too. NYT isn’t “doxxing” ICE workers. At most, there needs to be transparency and accountability for public agencies and law enforcement activity. Not the same as “doxxing”.

      Boycotting is a natural freedom of non-violent protest in a capitalist society.
      It is BS to assert that it would result in violence.

      It is funny and sad that people who oppose democracy must first demonize democracy by accusing it of “mob rule”.

      1. Chip Douglas

        “It is funny and sad that people who oppose democracy must first demonize democracy by accusing it of “mob rule”.”

        1st, we do not have a Democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic.
        2nd, a Democracy is “mob rule”. Democracy is rule by the majority with no regard for the minority. In other words, if the vote tally is 1,000,000 to 999,999 the 1,000,000 vote wins regardless of the distribution of the votes in the country. The founders knew this and created the electoral college for just such a scenario, to prevent large concentrations of people in a few locations from making policy for the entire nation. The Democrats have now come out in favor of abolishing that because they foresee large populated cities run by Democrats able to out vote the rest of the country, but only if a popular vote decides the election instead of the electoral college. For 240 some odd years the electoral college has served this nation well and now the Democrats want to change the rules in order to game the system. No surprise to me, this is what they do.

        1. Readership1


          I agree with you here re: voting, etc.

          I also read your response further above and will concede you’ve made a persuasive argument for caller ID being one of the factors.

        2. Joe

          No, you are not allowed to make up your own definitions.
          We do have a Democracy. A specific type of Representative Democracy, also known as a Republic. But all still a type of democracy. There are many types.

          You don’t seem to even know what the terms mean… and I assume you have a tendency to change definitions to fit your pre-existing worldview.
          Your complete ignorance on the electoral college shows how you blindly accept the twisted definition handed to you by your party leaders or preachers.

          You just described the electoral college, where the 50%+1 majority gets all the votes. Leaving the 50%-1 with nothing. You don’t know or seem to care, what the founders were thinking. They were still fine with slavery and against women voting back then… so let’s not pretend they were trying to be fair and champions of equality.

          “to prevent large concentrations of people in a few locations from making policy for the entire nation”
          You think the electoral college fixes this? Wow, the blatant ignorance. For presidential elections, the power is concentrated into a handful of swing states. There is a reason all the campaigning happens there.

          Also, “making policy for the entire nation”. You don’t even seem to be talking about the electoral college, which is only for the presidencial elections. You need education on the difference between the executive and legislative branches.

          We do grant more political power to states with smaller populations… it is the compromise that allows electoral votes and senators per state, regardless of population.

          And yes, if the people to be represented mostly live in and around cities/metropolitan areas… then they SHOULD get proportionately more voting power. That doesn’t mean they get to “run the country”. There is still going to representatives based on districts.

          Regardless of your attempt to redefine the words to pretend that you don’t hate democracy… you really do oppose democracy for anyone other than your own kind. You only want democracy as long as it favors your in group. And it hurts your sensibility to even fathom that you may be a minority on any particular viewpoint, and thus you want to declare that “your democracy” is not inclusive of the people actually living in other places or leading different lifestyles.
          This is exactly why our founding fathers were declaring “all men created equal”, while hypocritically denying women and blacks any part of this democracy. Democracy for white, land owning, men only. Otherwise, let’s claim, “mob rule”.

          1. Chip Douglas

            You are wrong.
            We have a Constitional Republic or as Ben franklin put it, “a Republic madam, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin recognized the threat posed to a “Representative Republic” by partisan politics, special interests, and unrestrained growth of the central (Federal) government. (All things Democrats count as positives) Your efforts at convoluting the definition of the word “Democracy” will not work with anyone who actually knows the definition of the word. It always boils down to mob rule by the majority.
            Your partisan view has proven you have an inaccurate understanding of our founding. One of the things I noticed is you seem to think the founders made allowances for the minority by allowing only two Senators per state. What you don’t understand is that originally the founders laid that out as an election by the legislators in each state, NOT a general election by the public. The idea was to give the legislators of a state (elected by the citizens of that state) an equal say on what would become national law, another effort of checks and balances. That was changed with the 17th amendment furthering the quest for “mob rule” by those interested in a work around the constitution. The founders blueprint has been modified over the years and has only resulted in problems with the original government system they envisioned.
            You said, “For presidential elections, the power is concentrated into a handful of swing states. There is a reason all the campaigning happens there.”
            Yes but that would not be the case if Democrats managed to abolish the electoral college. You might want to consult with =Hillary Clinton as she found out the hard way if you don’t sell yourself in ALL areas of the country AND sell yourself to the entire country inste

            1. Joe

              A republic is a type of democracy. So we can still have a republic, while you are still incorrect with your claim that we don’t have a democracy.

              Sorry, but your ridiculous accusations that I am partisan are laughable considering how much vitriol and hate you are spewing about democrats. It is possible to be non-partisan and still hate the Electoral College. Just like the millions of conservative in California with no voice.

              You don’t seem to know anything about American politics, but are rather regurgitating some talking points that were twisted around.

              I was giving you the benefit of the doubt… but it has become clear that you really hate the idea of democracy, so must demonize it as mob rule, even though you don’t know the meaning of any of the words.

  26. Chip Douglas

    Thank you. There are multiple factors involved and as you said the use of aggressive swat squads is also a part of the problem.

  27. sensei

    LOL “swatting”, they must be young kids who most of the time don’t have much going on for them! Am not surprised because Nazis are usually very young(below 30) and easily swayed,prime targets for recruiters.

  28. BD Jones

    OK, that covers the Neo-Nazi doxers.
    ..Looking forward to the story on the far Left doxing activities, e.g., Antifa doxing.

    Doxing is always wrong. But let’s not pretend it is mainly a right wing activity.
    Conservative journalists have also been doxed and had death threats, e.g., teh Tucker Carlson death threats and protests ourside his DC home:




    Where is the outrage against Antifa?
    We live in an uncivil time. The best thing we can do is censure ALL the bad actors, not just the ones we don’t agree with.


  29. Syntaxxx Err0r

    Good Read… this actually makes me feel a little more, relaxed.. i guess. but it doesnt…

    In 2017, memorial day weekend was only just days aways, I was Dox/swatted thanks to my “stalker” of now 25 some odd years. He himself has little or no skill in the “hacker” community. not that i can tell, but he does have his ways of using social engineering, which is the first step of any hackers developing skill set.

    anyways.. Being SWATTED.. was perhaps one of the most traumatizing experiences of my life, except this wasnt the FIRST time i was a victim of a SWATTING. the first experience came when i was but 4 years old. Im not going to get into those details, but The first one alone has caused major social anxieties and trust issues, namely trust issues with the Police in general. I cant go anywhere, without seeing a cop, and being totally innocent, will still start sweating bullets. pardon my frankness of speech, but my butthole puckers so tight i could sh*t a diamond.

    In both incidents, i was asleep at the time the swatting began. In the first case, turns out my recently divorced mothers New BF at the time was a Klan King Pin, and arms smuggler. that summer i learned i didnt like Racist types, i didnt like “Kamping”, burning crosses were not appealing to me by any means, and forevermore from that night on, even sending a Stripper as a cop will cause me debilitating panic that i almost cant even function..

    the second occurance only just further made me a recluse…

    Swatting is SO not even cool.. and i hope these punks are found and brought to justice. but that could be forever and a day, im still trying to find a way to get my extremely psycho, definately touched in the head, and almost Napoleonic delusions of granduer stalker either into the mental help he needs, (likely going to need it myself with the things hes pulled… )

  30. Walter Pickman

    “You are so immersed in fake news you wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked you between the eyes.”

    That is rich, coming from a liar who tried to deny that the Alt Right exists and who posts fake news from The Gateway Pundit. You are also too cowardly to address any of the links I posted, so perhaps you should stop projecting your own failings upon others.

    “You are now ignoring any links and repeating your screed.”

    Lying will not help you, Chip. One of the links you posted shows the white nationalist and Trump talking points in the El Paso shooter’s manifesto, but because you are a liar, a coward, and a Nazi collaborator, you will not acknowledge it. Also, you ignored my links, so your accusation is ironic as well as dishonest.

    And once again, lying coward, there was a clear ideological motivation for the El Paso shooter’s attack that you are too dishonest and cowardly to even acknowledge, while there doesn’t appear to have been one for the Dayton shooting. It’s interesting how you ignore this point every time I raise it. But I expect no more from a Nazi collaborator. Thanks for exposing your true colors in this comment section for everyone to see, Chip Douglas.

    1. Chip Douglas

      Walter, there is no point in continuing to argue with a moron like yourself bent on defending communists no matter what proof is supplied, so I quit. You are just too stupid to understand. enjoy your alternate reality world.

      Fondest Regards,

      1. Walter Pickman

        Prove that I’m a moron, you lying moron. But you won’t, because you can’t. And where have I defended communists? Oh that’s right, I haven’t, so thanks again for proving yourself to be nothing but a liar and a coward.

        And by the way, since only a stupid moron would fall for obvious fake news like the Gateway Pundit, you calling me stupid is just projection. It is a fact that white supremacists are killing people on a regular basis while lying scum like you try to deny that the Alt Right even exists, which is rich, since it was white nationalists who coined that term in the first place. Enjoy your alternative reality, Chip, and thanks for revealing your true colors… again. And again.

      1. Walter Pickman

        I get that you’re a moron with terrible reading comprehension skills, but I never defended the Dayton shooter or denied that he identified as left-wing. I just pointed out the obvious fact that there doesn’t appear to be any ideological motivation for his attack, unlike the El Paso terrorist, who was motivated by Alt Right talking points and Trump’s inflammatory remarks about the southern border. So thanks once again for failing spectacularly and exposing yourself as a liar… yet again.

        I’m really looking forward to your next cowardly display of deflection, denialism, and spurious accusations of communism, since you clearly have nothing else.

Comments are closed.