Hacker News Reader

Comment by jchw | Hacker News Reader

Those tweets cannot be used to convict someone. It's also not really their fault given they just took existing public data and reposted it...

But the final nail in the coffin is that simply put, 99% of the posts are from people who know it's public, don't care, and intentionally fill the description with stupidity. I can't count the number of times I've gotten venmo payments sent to me with salacious descriptions.

If you're actually breaking the law you are probably fine because far more people are just screwing around and you'll blend right in. And also, if you are breaking the law and think it's a good idea to admit that repeatedly via internet payments, maybe you aren't the brightest.

View on HN

> Those tweets cannot be used to convict someone.

These tweets can't be used to convict you, but they could be used to secure a warrant and send a SWAT team into your house. Maybe they find drugs, maybe they shoot some people or pets, maybe they just scare everyone and damage your property.

> 99% of the posts are from people who know it's public, don't care, and intentionally fill the description with stupidity

How do you know that? My assumption was that payment details would not be publicly broadcast when I send money to a friend. Do you really think this assumption puts me in the bottom 1%?

> but they could be used to secure a warrant and send a SWAT team into your house

Nobody is going to send a SWAT team to someone's house over a $25 Venmo transaction marked as "drugs". Not only is it not even close to nearly enough evidence for a warrant, but a SWAT team isn't going to get sent for drug possession in any case.

You are naive, and spreading dangerous infromation. I had a friend whose house got swatted a couple of years ago after another friend sent him money via paypal with the desc "thanks for the guns and drugs". The other friend, Canadian, also had law enforcement show up on behalf of interpol.

SWAT is called special weapons and tactics for a reason. They get sent out in dangerous situations such as hostages, or when the suspect is known to be very armed, not for any old call. It costs money to train and deploy them, and it's not done as often as you imply.

Being swatted is a thing, but it's not going to happen over a $25 Venmo transaction titled as "drugs". Or even one titled as "weapons". There needs to be actual intent to harm someone immediately declared. Last year's swatting was because the person claimed he "had fatally shot his father, and was holding family members at gunpoint."

Law enforcement is different than SWAT, so I won't even entertain your second anecdote except for saying in order for Interpol to get involved, they needed far more evidence than a Paypal transaction with that description.

Interpol wasn't involved, they literally just passed the info along to local QC law enforcement. This ended up being a thing that dragged on for several months for the Canadian. You are probably right though on the American friend, swatted was the wrong word. Maybe visited by armed cops ready to make an arrest was more like it.

People are able to send SWAT teams to houses as a prank. Someone malicious who is stalking another person could use this information to justify their "prank".

What about do-gooders? Someone sees a transaction marked "for drugs" and they call the police because they think they are helping. This already happens to a lot of people holding cookouts, selling lemonade, cutting grass, and more.

Hardly "nobody".

> People are able to send SWAT teams to houses as a prank. Someone malicious who is stalking another person could use this information to justify their "prank".

Yes, by lying and saying there is a dangerous situation like a hostage. In the swatting incident from last year, they were called because the person said he "had fatally shot his father, and was holding family members at gunpoint."

SWAT gets sent out, sure. But SWAT does not get sent out for minor drug charges. They're called special weapons and tactics for a reason.

Not true:

"SPOKANE, Wash. - SWAT raided a Spokane home on heroin warrant. It happened just before 11 am Friday morning at a duplex home on the corner of 4th and Altamont. Details were not immediately known but authorities on scene say they were serving a warrant related to heroin."

http://www.khq.com/story/21437261/swat-situation

How do police obtaining a warrant? In part by establishing probable cause. How is probable cause determined in the US:

"Probable cause can be based on either direct observation by the police officer, or on hearsay information provided by others."

Once again, probable cause is a much higher bar than a Venmo transaction where you can put whatever you want in the description.

I believe I understand your point: police themselves are unlikely to initiate a SWAT raid based on the Venmo transaction comment.

However, I don't believe you are sincerely trying to understand my point: If probably cause can be established by, "hearsay information provided by others", Then the Venmo transaction information could result in someone being SWATed by a well intending citizen or a malicious person.

Therefore, the availability of this information on Venmo can be a contributing factor to someone having the police called on them (and the police responding). I am not sure where the hole in this logic is?

> SWAT gets sent out, sure. But SWAT does not get sent out for minor drug charges. They're called special weapons and tactics for a reason.

Sure they get called out for minor drug raids. For "practice." Especially in smaller locales where SWAT is needed infrequently. It's probably a bad idea, but it is what it is.

In a country where SWATTING is a thing, I would not be so sure.

According to a 2014 study by the ACLU, most SWAT raids are for drug searches. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/24/...

A lot of people are naively breaking some law, but getting by because they are too obscure for anyone to get around to caring. Something like this with media coverage can effectively 'short list' a few unlucky people who wouldn't otherwise deserve scrutiny, thus making it irresponsible to do as a real researcher.

Even fake salacious descriptions stop being fun when the IRS shows up for an audit.

Back when I lived with a roommate, he paid the rent and I paid him half. I always wrote out the check for 'sexual favors."

Exactly. Anyone actually writing in "Drugs" and meaning its for drugs is going to get caught in some other fashion for being stupid. Police know 99.9999% of the Venmo comments are farce.

That doesn’t matter if they are looking for a pretext for a search warrant or an arrest.

Spoken like someone with no experience with drug court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com