Man Hacks 911 System, Sends SWAT on Bogus Raid

An anonymous reader writes "The Orange County Register reports that a 19 year old from Washington state broke into the Orange County California 911 emergency system. He randomly selected the name and address of a Lake Forest, California couple and electronically transferred false information into the 911 system. The Orange County California Sheriff's Department's Special Weapons and Tactics Team was immediately sent to the home of a couple with two sleeping toddlers. The SWAT team handcuffed the husband and wife before deciding it was a prank. Says the article, 'Other law enforcement agencies have seen similar breaches into their 911 systems as part of a trend picked up by computer hackers in the nation called "SWATting"'"

dealing with innocents

[Speare (84249)]

I totally don't condone the "prankster" jerk's behavior in this incident, or anything similar.

However, I have to say that a silver lining in this sort of incident is that it might help the more zealous members of law enforcement (ever more beefy, ever more armored, ever more anonymous, ever more hair-triggered) remember that there are innocent people out there who don't deserve a knee in the back, a taser in the ass, or a broken door. A citizen who is drunk at a restaurant, or who is loud at a rally does not equate to being dangerous or resisting.

When you assume, it makes an ass of you and me. When a cop assumes, all too often he reaches for his sidearm.

Jail time need

[moracity (925736)]

If this kid doesn't get jail time, it's just time to do away with all of our laws. What's the point?

The victimized family should bring a a civil suit and make sure they get a monetary judgement that docks his wages for years to come. If he gets away with it, we'll be hearing about him again.

New hacker category

[by Anonymous Coward]

For people who do this kind of stuff.

Whitehat Grayhat Blackhat Asshat

It may be the police's / politician's own fault for having the unprotected system and bla bla bla... But when they catch the guy who did it, 5+ years in the slammer I say. That's the kind of situation when you can take the Hacker Manifesto and wipe your ass with it.

More details on how he did this...

[Kronos666 (555566)]

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071017/NEWS02/710170400 [goerie.com] Basically he used a system for the hearing impaired to relay a message... the operator then called the police. He also tried to do the same thing to someone else who was "cheating in an online game". You have to love these kids...

Re:Good grief

[onion2k (203094)]

True, but in a good way. It's a pretty harrowing experience for the innocent victim but at least it was just a prank. A more nefarious criminal could use the same exploit to send a SWAT team to the other end of their jurisdiction while they carried out a robbery. This way the security flaw can be found and fixed with relatively little harm done.

Re:Good grief

[MightyYar (622222)]

I'd agree with you if the hackers had told the cops about the flaw and they didn't fix it - but in this case, they just exploited the flaw for their own amusement. Someone could have been killed, and then a lot of lives would have been ruined. Off the top of my head: the cop who shot an innocent or the innocent who shot a cop, the person who was shot, and possibly the hacker. Fucking with the cops is only funny in the movies.

Re:Good grief

[by Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. He's absolutely right and doesn't even know why--It's not at all funny that it's so appallingly EASY to fuck with people who have the power to arrest or execute someone who justifiably engages in defense of their home and family against armed invaders. In fact--it's downright distressing.

The cops should be held responsible for acting with preparation and intent to utilize lethal force based solely upon such readily compromised intelligence, and the flaw should be fixed immediately. The hacker--an idiot. But everyone knows the old saying--fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The cops have been getting fooled around the country for years and still done nothing to correct the situation.

Re:Good grief

[Teufelsmuhle (849105)]

I always thought it was, "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Re:Good grief

[encoderer (1060616)]

The problem is that more of our crimes today are committed by criminals.

Re:Good grief

[Clockwork Apple (64497)]

It is offset though by the fact that more of our laws are being written, passed and enforced by them too.

Re:Good grief

[Omnifarious (11933)]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Though I do commend the cops in question on having made the right decision and they didn't shoot the guy. But it could easily have gone the other way. With a little more knowledge by the teenager he could've set the cops up for it even more than he did and made it that much more likely.

Assassination by tricking the cops into doing it for you has now been proven to be possible. It's only a matter of time. And I bet if it had gone down that way instead of the way it did, we'd never even be hearing about this case.

Re:Good grief

[Mr. Freeman (933986)]

SWAT isn't going to shoot unless they have reason to AT THE SCENE. There is no way in hell anyone could send orders to SWAT to say "kill person XYZ". SWAT doesn't do assassinations, they are called in to prevent deaths if possible.

Even if orders do get sent to SWAT saying "kill person xyz at address abc", they aren't going to do anything because they'll immediately recognize that it's not real. The only reason SWAT members discharge their weapons is if there is an immediate danger to themselves or others (I.E. madman pointing a gun at police or shooting from a window at people below).

Re:Good grief

[Omnifarious (11933)]

SWAT isn't going to shoot unless they have reason to AT THE SCENE. There is no way in hell anyone could send orders to SWAT to say "kill person XYZ". SWAT doesn't do assassinations, they are called in to prevent deaths if possible.

Well, that's very true. But it would be stupid to do that, and I clearly somehow manage to miscommunicate my point in my post if that's what you think I meant.

To be perfectly clear, here are the steps you would follow:

1. Trick the 911 system like this teenager did.
2. Report the description of the person you want to kill.
3. Say that the person has killed a few other people and seems to be really handy with just about any weapon.
4. For even better effect, say that he has killed one person who tried to fight back in close quarters with a well placed jab to the throat.
5. Say the person is on PCP.
6. Call the person in question and say you're a neighbor and saw someone outside with a light.

Poof, there's a recipe for a likely 'accidental' shooting of an innocent person by the cops. You've basically told them there's a horribly deranged and dangerous person somewhere and then primed the person to react belligerently in the first instant the person notices anything.

It wouldn't work as well if your target were a woman because of cultural conditioning, but you might still be able to pull it off.

Even better, because the cops never, ever admit they're wrong, ever, the person then ends up framed for some bogus crime so the shooting seems justified.

Re:Good grief

[keraneuology (760918)]

SWAT isn't going to shoot unless they have reason to AT THE SCENE.

If the bogus orders were "the people inside the house just shot a cop!" then unquestionably the trigger fingers would have been quite a bit happier.

Re:Good grief

[Anonymous Brave Guy (457657)]

The only reason SWAT members discharge their weapons is if there is an immediate danger to themselves or others (I.E. madman pointing a gun at police or shooting from a window at people below).

Yeah, that's what our firearms cops said too, right before they shot the guy carrying a table leg in a bag based on nothing but a poorly executed confrontation (easy to say with hindsight, of course) after a tip-off from a paranoid guy in a bar. Oh, and that little incident on the London Underground, where they shot the guy for getting on a tube train. (Apparently he was exhibiting suspicious behaviour by getting off a bus on the way to the station, then getting back on again; the observing officer had failed to notice that the underground station he had got off to enter the first time happened to be closed that day, and the controlling officers interpreted his actions as counter-surveillance techniques. This was just one in a string of ****-ups that led to the man's death.)

I appreciate that cops with guns are in an inherently difficult position. Make the wrong call, and someone you're supposed to protect dies because you didn't take out the criminal; make the wrong call the other way, and you kill an innocent civilian. But don't ever kid yourself that just because these guys are cops with some firearms training that either their physical or emotional reactions are perfect in a high-stress situation. Humans just don't work that way, no matter how well-intentioned and well-trained.

Re:Good grief

[Scrameustache (459504)]

SWAT isn't going to shoot unless they have reason to AT THE SCENE. [...] The only reason SWAT members discharge their weapons is if there is an immediate danger to themselves or others (I.E. madman pointing a gun at police or shooting from a window at people below).

• Two SWAT officers headed toward the car, one to arrest Culosi and one to protect the officer, Horan said.
  The officer involved, a 17-year veteran with long tactical experience, pulled up in a car behind the undercover officer's. "As the officer came out," Horan said, "he was bringing his weapon up. In the course of bringing his weapon up, it discharged. He has no real explanation how."
  The officer's name was not released.
  Horan said the officer shouted "Police!" at Culosi. "Right after 'Police!'" Horan said, "it went pow."
  Culosi was killed almost instantly.
  Horan said the bullet entered Culosi's left side, traveled through his body and was recovered on his right side. Horan said the officer was aware that he should not have had a finger on the trigger and that he should not have had his .45-caliber H&K handgun pointed at anyone. [washingtonpost.com]
• At 4:30 a.m. on Jan. 21, 2005, Noel and her husband, Charles, were asleep in the master bedroom of their row house when the heavily-armed Baltimore County SWAT team stormed through her home. According to the suit, officers had found "trace amounts of drugs" in trash cans outside of the home.
  Cheryl Noel feared criminal intruders had broken into her home and grabbed a lawfully registered gun and held it pointed at the floor, the suit states.
  Artson kicked in her bedroom door with his boot and, without identifying himself or telling Noel to drop her weapon, shot her three times, including once after she already had slumped to the floor [examiner.com]

...and many more.

Re:Good grief

[GregPK (991973)]

I dunno, I think these days you would've found yourself under arrest if you had warned the police about the exploit. Plus, they'd likely charge you for terrorism.

Re:Good grief

[srhill (877324)]

possibly with a fake return address

An anonymous letter with your real return address wouldn't help much now would it?

Re:Good grief

[kalirion (728907)]

Send an anonymous letter, possibly with a fake return address.

Isn't the point to NOT have SWAT teams show up at random addresses?

Re:Good grief

[MBGMorden (803437)]

Not for informing them per sé, but rather for messing around with the system enough to discover a security flaw (ie, you comprised it to see if it could be compromised).

It's not so much the act of informing them, but rather the act of breaking into the system in the first place.

Picture this: you come home from a days work. There's this teenager sitting at your dinner table waiting, and when you come in he says "Dude, did you know your lock is really easy to pick? Change it. I promise I didn't take anything. Later!".

I know one kid who is taking a quick trip to jail for breaking into my house . . .

Re:Good grief

[pclminion (145572)]

I'd agree with you if the hackers had told the cops about the flaw and they didn't fix it - but in this case, they just exploited the flaw for their own amusement.

Tell the cops about it? Are you fucking insane? He would have been arrested and charged with some kind of terrorism. If he knows of a security issue, that means he was testing security -- a.k.a. "hacking." Sadly, this was probably the only way to point out the flaws in the system without ending up in prison. Unfortunately he didn't cover his tracks well enough.

Re:Good grief

[Stripe7 (571267)]

This is not the only way to point out the flaw to the police. If he was afraid of being prosecuted for finding the breach, he could have just as easily used anonymous proxies to send the information to police, government officials and the press. At the very least instead of sending the SWAT officers out he could have just left them a warning on the 911 system itself. He did it for kicks and put peoples lives in danger.

Re:Good grief

[theshowmecanuck (703852)]

scenario: Instead of a knife the homeowner gets out a gun (who cares what kind, pistol, shotgun, rifle). He goes outside and sees a cop in shadows under a bush and points the gun at him/her... all perfectly legal to him since all he can't tell is that these are prowlers trespassing on his property. (I am assuming California is a state that allows a home owner to actively defend his/her home with a gun. Regardless, the 'hacker' could have caused this to happen in a state where it is permissible.) The other police see him point the gun and shoot him. This could have been the result of this and would not have the fault of the police nor reflect badly on their training or on the quality of their work. It would be well within their training since they think the home owner is an armed and dangerous felon.

There are many permutations of this scenario.

Bottom line: you are wrong. Anyone, including the police can say that, 'this was an irresponsible and dangerous action the hacker took and someone could have been killed.' And by saying it, it certainly does not indicate any lack of confidence in the police training. And I don't believe the police are infallible, nor do I think that they believe they are infallible. Otherwise they wouldn't train so hard to make sure they do things as well as they possibly can. Why train if you are infallible?

Re:Good grief

[tnk1 (899206)]

You say that, but good is relative.

What if the guy whose house this is happened to be at home cleaning his gun in his basement or in some way looked threatening to someone who was looking to assault his house? Sure, SWAT is trained not to shoot first and ask questions later, but I wouldn't be particularly happy to be flashbanged or tear gassed because some little shit can send a SWAT team to my house for no reason.

And of course, people who happened to be armed tend to look unfavorably at people attacking their home, whether they yell "Police" or not upon busting down their door. Sending a special weapons and tactics unit anywhere is a firefight waiting to happen.

Re:Good grief

[Firethorn (177587)]

"Sure, SWAT is trained not to shoot first and ask questions later, "

I'm afraid that I'd have to disagree with this. At least compared with normal officers, SWAT is indeed trained to shoot first.

This can be considered acceptable if SWAT usage is restricted to high risk situations, where not using these tactics is likely to result in more deaths, but some areas have them serving most of the warrents - even on unarmed, non-violent dentists moonlighting as bookies [washingtonpost.com].

Re:Good grief

[Anti_Climax (447121)]

And of course, people who happened to be armed tend to look unfavorably at people attacking their home, whether they yell "Police" or not upon busting down their door. Sending a special weapons and tactics unit anywhere is a firefight waiting to happen.

More than that, no-knock warrant raids have, on more than one occasion, been served to the wrong address and in the process officers have been killed by surprised residents. If a home owner does not have a reasonable expectation that a no-knock warrant may be served (e.g. not doing illegal things that might result in a SWAT raid), they may not be held legally responsible for shooting or killing an officer. Obviously there has to be reasonable evidence that they did not know it was law enforcement when they acted, but ultimately the outcomes of these situations should be put on whomever was responsible for the incorrect address being served.

Dominos can find the right house, you'd think the cops could. Then again, when it's not right the pizza guy isn't going to be kicking in the door holding a gun.

Re:Good grief

[mangastudent (718064)]

It's what we have when we live in a post-911/tripwire society. Shoot first, ask questions later.

HELLO???

Try "Post-Nixon's initiation of the War On Drugs".

Now, it's perhaps unfair to blame you for not knowing the entire history of something that probably started before you were born (I was in grade school, but it had an "educational" impact back then), but ... surely you've heard of no-knock warrants and their related atrocities which have been going on for decades and decades???

Bipartisian and nothing to do with the GWOT.

Re:Good grief

[spirality (188417)]

However, both are great reasons to vote for Ron Paul!

Re:Good grief

[Guppy06 (410832)]

"It's a pretty harrowing experience for the innocent victim but at least it was just a prank."

It's all fun and games until someone gets shot for resisting arrest?

Re:Good grief

[sholden (12227)]

Because no one has ever been killed in a SWAT raid before. Certainly never an innocent person.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ [cato.org]

Re:Good grief

[Hatta (162192)]

Just a prank? Good god man! Mistaken ID gets people killed in situations like this. Frequently these searches are executed without any announcement. Just men with guns breaking through your door. What's a good law abiding citizen going to do if they live in an area where home invasion robberies aren't uncommon? They're rightfully going to defend themselves. The cops will rightfully defend themselves. Long story short, people die because of lesser screw ups than this. Don't minimize it.

Re:Good grief

[Hatta (162192)]

You're absolutely right. Cops have way too much power and way too little accountability. In fact, one fellow [wikipedia.org] killed a cop in just this kind of circumstance. No knock, thought it was a robbery, shot the intruder, ends up on death row as a cop killer.

Personally, I'm more afraid of the police than those they're supposed to protect me against.

Re:Good grief

[iminplaya (723125)]

Posting from work [slashdot.org]?

Re:So what state is the crime?

[east coast (590680)]

So the SWAT team got hacked LOL

You'll think that until you end up being on the short end of the stick. It's nice to have the police show up and you getting a few round from a MP5 popped into your chest for trying to make heads or tails of the commotion. Don't think it won't happen sooner or later. I know if someone was beating in my door at 3 a.m. the first things I'm reaching for is a flashlight and my H&K 45.

Defacing a webpage is funny. Risking some unknown family's lives over a prank is just idiotic.

Re:Forged CID

[222 (551054)]

Hrmm. 911 uses ANI, not your garden variety CID. I'm not saying it's impossible to spoof, but WAAAAAY harder and typically involves something being mis configured at your telco. ANI is also used to handle billing for 1-800 numbers, etc.

Okay, having rtfa

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

What he hacked up was their caller id system, so it looked like the call was coming from the house in question. He stated in the call that he'd overdosed on cocaine, was shot, and that someone was going to kill his sister. Sounds like they sent 20 guys, which would seem to be a rational response given drugs + guns + unknown number of assailants.

They handcuffed the homeowner because he went out in his skivvies with a kitchen knife because he thought he heard people on the lawn. I guess he saved his door getting kicked in, but I'm not sure he sees it as a good thing.

Re:Okay, having rtfa

[markana (152984)]

If you read the Seattle-area news, you get a bit more detail (but not much). He's got a juvenile record, and is suspected of doing this in other cities.

Looks like he picked the family at random (from his earlier entry into AOL's systems), then called them to verify their name and address. It seems to me that he tried to come up with a scenario that would generate the maximum possible response from the police, which is about what he got. If the homeowner was carrying a gun instead of a knife, he'd most likely be dead now. That was probably the high score that Ellis wanted to hit.

We'll see if anyone ever leaks how he did it. Could have been as simple as a compromised VOIP switch sending bogus ANI data down a trunk. Or maybe he entered a record directly into the dispatch system (which isn't supposed to be connected to the net).

At least he wasn't smart enough to fully cover his tracks.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[theguru (70699)]

But.. but.. that would be illegal.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

If 10 rapists in riot gear with automatic weapons are running at me yelling, "Police!" I'm fucked whether I drop the gun or not.

It's usually not all that difficult to tell the difference between a police raid and a home invasion. The cops will not even attempt to be subtle once they start moving in.

I'm slow, but I get it right every time now!

[weston (16146)]

It's usually not all that difficult to tell the difference between a police raid and a home invasion.

Yeah! Well, it took me a while, but I've gotten to the point where I don't even have to wake up to tell the difference!

Just last week I woke up to find my already splintered and duct-taped door kicked in yet again, and I'd slept right through it! I'm pretty it was the police based on what they took and what they didn't take.

See, I've gotten to the point where I keep two packages handy whenever I go to bed: one with ID, a personal statement, some donuts, coffee, milk, etc., and the other with a few valuables and convincing amount of cash I round up before I go to bed. I give the appropriate one to whoever breaks in that night. I used to mess up *all* the time -- and while, sure, the thugs appreciated the donuts, they'd always want the valuables, too, even though they'd get nicer about it if the donuts were good. And you could see the police really had their feelings hurt when they thought I was trying to buy them off, and nobody wants that.

But I've gotten it right the last 15 times -- even last week, when I woke up in the morning to find out I'd slept through it all. The donuts were gone and the valuables were still there! I'm looking forward to the time when this will all be sorted out and I can just buy myself another door and stop spending all this money on donuts, duct tape, and miscellaneous valuables, but in the meanwhile, I'm glad I've adapted and learned to cope before doing anything really stupid like overreacting when someone breaks in.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[pla (258480)]

It's usually not all that difficult to tell the difference between a police raid and a home invasion.

Sitting down to eat dinner when a swat team breaks down the door, yes. The police, however, favor pre-dawn raids. You presume that someone would have the same capacity to tell the difference in the 1.7 seconds between "sound asleep", "guys with guns yelling at me", and "fire off as many rounds at my attackers as possible".

You also presume someone would care about the difference, rather than considering the police just as dangerous (if not more) than most actual criminals.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[megaditto (982598)]

It was a typo. I mean, Q and N are right next to each-other.

Re:Stupid & dangerous

[hawk (1151)]

>Every time an officer sees someone, 'Police' will be the first word out of his mouth.

This may have something to do with the divorce rate for cops:

[sultry] "Hey, honey, look what I put on for you."

"Police, wow."

[confused] "Huh?"

"Police, I like it."

[hurt] "Knock that off!" {*sniff*}

"Police, I can't."

[angry] "Goodbye." :)

hawk

Obligatory and most likely ignored...

[Romancer (19668)]

Alright so here's the rant:

So do we all feel safer after the establishment of Homeland Security and the billions of dollars spent in upgrading the ease of violating our civil liberties here at home in the name of protecting those same distinctions that make America different? This is another nail in the coffin of fear that we're building for ourselves here in the name of safety. When our most basic methods of crying out for help to our protectors can so easily be broken and used by the tormentors I feel a tremendous sense of loss for what we could have done with the same motivation and money that has been spent on this fear mongering compaign with the almost transparent attempts to simply gain power using the real threats that we face as a shield. America is great because of the people who don't love it or leave it, but protect it and improve it. The swearing in of the presidency is the paramount symbol of this nation, to make an oath to protect America against threats forign and domestic and uphold the constitution. It's not a choice between the two. For without the constitution there would have been no America to protect. At least no America where you would have the rights that allow you to be protected in the first place.

It's sad that the most basic of methods to protect the people is so vulnerable.

Re:One really stupid hack

[njfuzzy (734116)]

"Or if you really want to embarrass them send them to the local church after midnight."

Yeah. I get pretty embarrassed watching goth kids have sex too.

Re:Scary that a computer report alone...

[LWATCDR (28044)]

"There are WAY too many stupid, unthinking individuals in law enforcement to allow them to act with this kind of force without some direct authorization from someone with at least a LITTLE sense."
I guess you didn't read the story.
It was a PHONE CALL. He somehow forged the CID and it looked like the call came from that address.
So what you would like is this," Someone with an assault rife is trying to break into my home". We will send you some help as soon as we get permission?

"We live in a time where fear is threatening *WAY* more people than terrorism ever could." Yep in in this case it is your fear of the goverment that is outside of reason. The police seemed to have acted properly in this case and showed good restraint. The man "heard" a noise in his backyard and went out with a "KITCHEN KNIFE" to see what it was. Brilliant... So the SWAT team after being told that there was someone with a weapon at that location runs into a guy in his PJs with a knife! And they didn't shoot him.

If you got to be arrested, be it by swat

[SmallFurryCreature (593017)]

They are the real pro's and will NOT shoot you just because you got a knife. That is because unlike regular police they get to train, and train, and train, and train. A regular cop is someone who was given some extremely basic weapons training ages ago, vists a static shooting range every year or so and then in a split second has to go from ordinary average day routine into making a life and death decision.

CAR ANOLOGY! (Didn't think I could do it in this story, well I can)

You are an ordinary driver, you might have one day learned about what to do if you get into a skid, you may even have taken some training, but when you are just driving around and suddenly it all goes wrong and you are expected to suddenly get that 2 tons of metal out of a high speed skid, you probably will NOT do it as the book says.

Unlike a rally driver, to whom this is routine.

IF we want our regular police to be highly capable, and react correctly in an emergency, we better be prepared to pay them for endless training. Are we? No.

Most people understand this, if you got a medical emergency, where do you go, the hospital OR your family doctor? To a building filled with strangers who deal with emergencies ALL the time, or the guy you know and trust but whose last training was 30 years ago?

The swat team did what they are trained to do, lets hope this guys cellmate does what he has been training to do. He is going to get his ports probed.

Read the story

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

What the kid did was fake a call from the residence claiming that he had been shot and people were going to kill his sister. If I place a call like that, I WANT the SWAT team to kick in my door, I want 20 heavily armed people coming to save me. I don't want them to say "Well hang on a minute here, let's get the confirmation from the captain, a chief, a judge, and sit on it for day in case it's a hoax." I want them coming over and saving my life.

Yes, had they gone to some other random house, then I'd be with you on needing authorization, however this was, as far as they could tell, an emergency call from the resident in need of immediate help. Given that the emergency call involved drugs, a shooting and a potential hostage situation, this was an appropriate response. When you call for help, that's all the authorization they should need. The failure is in the identification system, not in the response. Had this been a real call, that's the kind of power you want to send, especially if there's a potential hostage situation.

Re:Drugs

[Grey_14 (570901)]

The problem here is the illegality and absurdity of the drug war.

Yeah, That's the problem with people hacking the 911 system to dispatch SWAT teams, good call.

Re:Drugs

[crabpeople (720852)]

Veering dangerously offtopic

"Not solving the underlying problem that the drugs exist and can be used to feel good and are addictive."

Thats not a problem, our bodies have evolved to be addicted to things. Millions are already addicted to sugar, caffene, etc. Do kids deal alcohol at school with guns? No because alcohol is readily available everywhere. If your kid gets addicted to drugs, its really the same as if they get addicted to television or sugar or lack of physical activity. Thats bad parenting, but we shouldnt stop people from CHOOSING to be bad parents. If it gets really bad, they take your children away. I would imagine drug use would be treated similarly.

People do not currently knock over 7/11s for alcohol or cigarette money. In any case, the crime should be robbery, no matter the motivations behind it.