Security reporter hit by 'swatting' attack | Security & Privacy - CNET News: "The term "swatting" refers to spoofing a 911-emergency call with the end goal of having a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team dispatched to a specific location under false pretenses. The fear of physical harm is real: SWAT teams, not known for their subtlety, have in the past caused harm to people who panicked when confronted with their crisis-smothering techniques. Its origins lie in the "phreaking" technique of faking a caller ID, although swatting is more sophisticated.
According to his own account, Krebs reacted calmly, allowing the police to handcuff him, and eventually was able to inform them that not only was the situation a hoax, but that he had filed a report with them months earlier explaining that it was likely that he would be the victim of a swatting attempt."
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Federal judge says FBI's secret national security letters seeking records are unconstitutional | Fox News
Federal judge says FBI's secret national security letters seeking records are unconstitutional | Fox News: "They're called national security letters and the FBI issues thousands of them a year to banks, phone companies and other businesses demanding customer information. They're sent without judicial review and recipients are barred from disclosing them.
On Friday, a federal judge in San Francisco declared the letters unconstitutional, saying the secretive demands for customer data violate the First Amendment.
The government has failed to show that the letters and the blanket non-disclosure policy "serve the compelling need of national security," and the gag order creates "too large a danger that speech is being unnecessarily restricted," U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote."
On Friday, a federal judge in San Francisco declared the letters unconstitutional, saying the secretive demands for customer data violate the First Amendment.
The government has failed to show that the letters and the blanket non-disclosure policy "serve the compelling need of national security," and the gag order creates "too large a danger that speech is being unnecessarily restricted," U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)