Judge Orders Waterloo Business To Name Customers Who Doxxed, Threatened Bungie Employees (therecord.com) 30
An innocent tweet about a wildly popular online multiplayer game led to a terrifying real-life campaign of doxxing and death threats against employees of game company Bungie. The Record reports: Two employees of Bungie, the American company behind "Destiny 2" -- a first-person shooter with 40 million users -- recently convinced an Ontario judge to order Waterloo-based TextNow to name its customers who made "racist and serious physical threats" against them. TextNow offers users anonymous phone service. [...] The two employees sought an "urgent and confidential" court order requiring TextNow to name the customers who made the threats. The judge agreed on June 15 but waited a month before releasing his reasons due to "the serious nature of the allegations of danger." TextNow collects information about each user, including email address, phone number, IP address, credit card number and logs of calls and texts.
The judge said the employees don't plan to sue the users in Ontario. "Whether they sue in the U.S. or just give the name to the police, I am satisfied that the exceptional equitable remedy ought to be available to identify people who harass others, with base racism, who dox, abuse personal information, and make overt threats of physical harm and death," he said. "Our mission is to provide everyone with an affordable way to communicate, and we place a high value on the safety and privacy of our users," a TextNow spokesperson said in an email to The Record. "From time to time, we receive lawful requests for information. We comply with all valid requests as required by law."
The judge said the employees don't plan to sue the users in Ontario. "Whether they sue in the U.S. or just give the name to the police, I am satisfied that the exceptional equitable remedy ought to be available to identify people who harass others, with base racism, who dox, abuse personal information, and make overt threats of physical harm and death," he said. "Our mission is to provide everyone with an affordable way to communicate, and we place a high value on the safety and privacy of our users," a TextNow spokesperson said in an email to The Record. "From time to time, we receive lawful requests for information. We comply with all valid requests as required by law."
I read the story (Score:3)
It seems like the legal system worked as the vast majority of people would want it to work. Why is this a news story?
Re:I read the story (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the justice system working the way the justice system should work is sadly very newsworthy these days...
Shucks... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Shucks... (Score:5, Funny)
That's why you always make death threats from you're grandma's house. Then when she gets SWATed, you can sue. Duh, it's like people don't understand the value of spoofing anymore and it's all about being an anonymous hipster...
Re: (Score:2)
What? No, you have to spoof being at your victim's mother's home, to add a layer of a YOUR MOM joke on top of it.
Trolling these days really has been reduced to making ridiculous statements from an account that looks like it's someone else. Nobody knows the finer details anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Too close to reality. "I can't believe they threw me in jail for failure to respond to a subpoena! Congress is out of control!"
system working for a change (Score:2)
Karma (Score:5, Funny)
Doxx people, get doxxed by the state. Karma.
I liked the part (Score:3)
Where TFA called SWATTING a prank.
I wonder what something serious would be called
Re:I liked the part (Score:5, Informative)
Where TFA called SWATTING a prank.
I wonder what something serious would be called
"Public mischief", from the Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46,
140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by ...
(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed;
Punishment ...
(2) Every one who commits public mischief
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years;
Canadian judges are polite... while they throw your ass in jail.
Re: (Score:3)
Intent to mislead is not the interesting thing about SWATting. Intent to murder by phone call to the cops is. Nobody would SWAT anybody if it didn't come with a risk of death, that's literally why they are doing it. If the only point were to have them harassed, they would make a call that resulted in some other kind of visit. In Canada, that could be a regular police visit. In the US, it has to be like a fake pizza order or something, because even the regular cops are dangerous.
Re:I liked the part (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry
The only apology I will accept is changed behavior.
People act as an outright nuisance all the time without the goal of killing people. e.g. calling in fake bomb threats, accusing someone of something they didn't do, etc.
While true, the actions of people who act as a nuisance are completely irrelevant to the actions of people trying to get other people murdered by police.
SWATting is just a trivial to execute example of one of those.
The relative difficulty of mounting the attack is also irrelevant to the point being made. If you get anywhere near a point, make it. If you think what you're saying is relevant to the point at hand, why not just quit now? If you're trolling, why do you think people here are dumb enough to buy your irrelevant blather as an argument?
Don't make it out like some cosmic brained assassination plot.
I don't know what you mean by "cosmic brained", which could mean any of a multitude of things. But it's an assassination plot for certain. If the attacker didn't want the target murdered, they wouldn't take actions to have the most dangerous possible units sent to perform the attack.
The overwhelming majority of fuckwits on the world are just that, fuckwits, not armed hooligans with murderous intent.
The overwhelming majority of people are fuckwits. Look around you for proof. Anyone who engages in SWATting is a fuckwit, because they're engendering a hazardous situation which could come back to bite them. However, that's irrelevant to the point. "Armed hooligans" is also a completely senseless and irrelevant mischaracterization of the argument, and I'm not sure what you thought you were going to accomplish there, but you were wrong. The only relevant part of that whole sentence was murderous intent, and that's what's demonstrated when someone calls the cops and tells them things designed to have a SWAT team sent to attack their victim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The relative difficulty of mounting the attack is also irrelevant to the point being made. If you get anywhere near a point, make it.
The relative difficulty makes swatting a nuisance. I made a point. You seem to have ignored it because of your preconceived bias that SWATing is an assassination tool rather than an incredibly dangerous pranking tool which allows other people to do work for you with just a phone call.
Yeah maybe the occasional person is trying to get someone murdered. But that's just stupid.
Anyone who engages in SWATting is a fuckwit, because they're engendering a hazardous situation which could come back to bite them. However, that's irrelevant to the point.
No you touched on my point perfectly right there while missing it. Armed hooligans are fuckwits, not some genius murderers. You give fuc
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody would SWAT anybody if it didn't come with a risk of death, that's literally why they are doing it.
I'm sorry but that's horseshit. People act as an outright nuisance all the time without the goal of killing people. e.g. calling in fake bomb threats, accusing someone of something they didn't do, etc.
That's his point - there are tons of ways to be an outright nuisance that are nonetheless safe. SWATting carries the possibility of death. It'd be closer to calling in a bomb threat... and also planting a bomb.
Which one is it? (Score:4, Interesting)
"TextNow offers users anonymous phone service."
"TextNow collects information about each user, including email address, phone number, IP address, credit card number and logs of calls and texts."
Re: (Score:2)
Guess I'll need to use a fake email when sending drunk texts to my ex :)
Re: (Score:2)
I am trying to reconcile these two statements:
"TextNow offers users anonymous phone service."
"TextNow collects information about each user, including email address, phone number, IP address, credit card number and logs of calls and texts."
It's a TRAP!
No business that is legitimately selling an anonymous service keeps information beyond what they need to operate -unless they intend to use the information against the users.
Re: (Score:2)
If they provide a service where the general public interacting with it doesn't know your identity, it's still anonymous. It's like posting anonymously right here on Slashdot -- you still have to sign in, right?
From the service provider's perspective, it's easier to do business when you know your customer: billing, customer support, complaints, etc. But more importantly, if a service doesn't know its customers and can't resolve complaints against them, that creates a liability for the business if they can't
Re: (Score:3)
They offer anonymous service, but they don't provide it.
Their ToS surely explains what they collect, so in fact, they don't really offer anonymous service, they only advertise it.
But in ACTUAL fact, TextNow does not advertise anonymous service. You can barely even find the word "anonymous" on their site, and when you do, they're talking about the law, feedback, privacy policy, etc. The word also doesn't appear in their play store listing.
Wonderful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Three years ago I took my gf (still with) out of an abusive situation and I got swatted because someone called the police and heavily implied I kidnapped her. Guns drawn and everything.
No repercussions to them but more PTSD for me I guess.
Waterloo business (Score:2)
I thought Waterloo was in Belgium or the Nethrlands. It is where the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon for the last time.
Re: (Score:2)
My, my, at Waterloo Napoleon did surrender
Oh yeah, and I have met my destiny in quite a similar way
The history book on the shelf
Is always repeating itself
Waterloo - I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo - promise to love you for ever more
Waterloo - couldn't escape if I wanted to
Waterloo - knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo - finally facing my Waterloo