Hacker News Reader

Comment by prepend | Hacker News Reader

This seems strange as a major corporation should be able to provide security to protect against death threats. And it should be the exact same security it provides normally for any large employee gathering.

Assuming that death threats actually took place and they were actually credible.

Seems silly for a company to not be able to act because of death threats. That seems like a viable reason for an individual or a very small dev, but it seems like there’s a now a way to just stop Unity from doing stuff.

Cynically, I assume they just don’t want the negative PR and wanted a reason to cancel.

View on HN

What hell is this? Private security can try to detain and deter people who are acting out of line but they are not equipped or legally able to deal with lethal force. That is a job for the police. This incident highlights just how rare it is that people make these kind of threats and how disruptive they can be. But there is also a clear moral imperative to take action when lives are being threatened, and this is exactly why we have taxes and laws and police.

Licensed private security guards who are armed, trained, and legally able to deal with lethal force are common all over the world.

> private security guards who are armed, trained, and legally able to deal with lethal force are common all over the world

Not in most of the developed world. And legally, rarely in America.

For that [EDIT: dealing lethal force] you need to hire off-duty cops. And I would think thrice before working in an office that felt it needed off-duty cops on hire. (I would also vote for more police. Security is a public good.)

Not so. Armed security guards are indeed legal and licensed to carry firearms in almost all US states[1], as well as in almost all European Union states[2], Japan[3], Australia[4], and Canada[5].

So, in nearly the entire 'developed world,' security guards can indeed carry guns.

[1] Time magazine even wrote about this a few months ago: https://time.com/6275440/insecure-private-security-replacing... -- it says that "about 30" states even allow guards to be licensed as "private police" with full arrest powers.

For an example, here is California's regulatory site: https://www.bsis.ca.gov/industries/guard.shtml -- California, one of the most notoriously anti-gun states -- allows properly licensed security guards to arrest people, as well as to carry tear gas, batons, and firearms.

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/use-firearms-private-security...

[3] https://dannychoo.com/archive/en/posts/firearms-in-japan

[4] https://multisectraining.edu.au/do-security-guards-carry-wea...

[5] https://novage.ms/canadian-laws-security-guards-need-to-know...

> licensed to carry firearms in almost all US states

Now look up authority to dispense lethal force. Much more limited compared to police.

On the contrary even individuals have the lawful right to defend themselves up to and including using lethal force.

It’s a peculiar argument you are making attempting to make it seem like only only law enforcement officers are allowed to use lethal force.

> individuals have the lawful right to defend themselves up to and including using lethal force

But not to run into a room to dispense it. If the armed guard happens to be under threat, yes, they can shoot to kill. But if someone starts shooting inside while they’re at the door, their legal rights are typically restricted to apprehension.

> But if someone starts shooting inside while they’re at the door, their legal rights are typically restricted to apprehension.

This is simply not true. Most states that regulate armed security guards have a duty to protect. It’s part of the training they receive and licensure to be able to carry a weapon for their job as an armed security guard.

Also, in most states, a private citizen carrying a weapon can who is just a bystander is legally allowed to use lethal force to protect other people and even if that means to run into a room and dispense it.

I think what may be confusing you is that guards can’t just blast for anything (like cops can). But if there’s someone with a gun drawn (or other lethal weapons) then it’s basically open season for anyone to kill that person to eliminate that threat.

Most people won’t seek out danger if they hear gunshots or see something. But armed guards have that as their job.

If I hire a security guard who is licensed to carry a gun and they don’t intervene if some psycho is waiving a gun around then that guard is doing a bad job.

Guards with guns are very different from the mall cop type people who you see as loss prevention officers that can’t do much. But they aren’t there to protect you from harm, they are there to reduce shoplifting.

> states that regulate armed security guards have a duty to protect

Source? Duty to protect doesn’t even apply to cops in America.

> it’s basically open season for anyone to kill that person

And if they miss and hit someone else? There is no liability shield for them as there is for cops. This is why there are virtually no examples of armed security subduing a shooter. It’s randos or cops.

Maybe I’ve fallen for cops’ marketing. But when hiring for events in four states, moonlighting LEOs come with an advertised advantage of being able to pull a trigger without thinking twice.

They are in the US. My work has armed private security guards.

It’s more common than you think. That’s why there are armed private security laws and regs.

Looks like there are 239,000 in the US [0]. This doesn’t include law enforcement.

[0] https://www.zippia.com/armed-guard-jobs/demographics/

They certainly are. I went to a concert with just a few thousand people and they had off duty cops there.

How about it seems silly to issue death threats over something so unfuckingbelievably inane?

from the outside, the gaming universe seems to be comprised of some of the most atrocious people on the planet. Astounding levels of vitriol/violence/crybaby behavior, week after week in the news.

It's really silly.

Also silly: forgetting that a group is not its worst members.

Remember that every single group with which you identify has had unstable members who behaved badly. Whether criminal behavior, death threat, bullying, or plain poor decisions, there are reprehensible people who superficially share your interests, appearance, background, or gender.

Although you can't judge a group on its worst members, the average of the gaming community isn't exactly great.

I mean, have you joined the voice chat for a popular shooter recently? There is a lot of vitriol and crybaby behaviour.

Consider the availability bias: extremes are notable (easily recalled), and so become outsized in evaluations.

Example: It is likely that any given random violent crime was committed by a man. Some are therefore convinced that all men are violent on average, even though it is quite unlikely for any random man to be violent.

It's also silly to think that all qualities, good or bad, are evenly distributed between groups

Did GP say this? Argue against what a person says not against some easier-to-argue position.

Did I say that every person in the gaming community is awful? Your comment that “not everyone is bad” is both obvious and meant to deflect criticism of the culture that obviously dominates the gaming world. As another commentator said, go join any FPS and turn on voice chat —- it has been this way at least since I got into online gaming 18 years ago. Based on my own experience and what makes it to the news, the situation is getting worse.

Misogyny, racism, and verbal abuse has been the norm since day one. Now you have that plus swatting, doxxing, and affiliated real-world harassment.

Nothing about this needs defending with platitudes about “not all gamers!” Everyone knows it’s not all gamers. That doesn’t mean, as you’re attempting to suggest, that the gaming universe doesn’t have serious and unique problems.

> Did I say that every person in the gaming community is awful?

No, and no one said you did. For the second time, argue what someone says.

> Your comment that “not everyone is bad”

Here you even put quotes around something no one wrote.

You did actually accuse me of "forgetting that a group is not its worst members," which would indeed be tantamount to saying everyone in the gaming community is awful.

Anyway thank you for the pointer that groups are groups, I guess? Not sure what you were trying to add to the conversation.

> Not sure what you were trying to add to the conversation.

That is disappointing.

There is one common factor with all of the toxic communities, forums and chat rooms that formed your impression of "the gaming universe" over 18 years. When you figure out what that common factor is, you will definitely find the many non-toxic, welcoming and inclusive gaming communities out there.

Lol, such wisdom to impart. Thank you!

You're welcome.

By the way the police announced that the death threats came from a Unity employee and not from a member of the "gaming community".

https://www.polygon.com/23873727/unity-credible-death-threat...

Yes, of course it’s terrible for someone to issue death threats over anything, much less software prices.

Threats of violence are wrong and illegal.

But companies should have security in place to protect their buildings for large gatherings. And that security should be able to reasonably protect against jerks who give death threats.

Dude... a video game software company should not need armed guards. Full stop.

The descent into a low-trust society is hurried along by commentary like this, so no, no thank you. It's not normal and it should not become normal.

They have 7000+ employees. They are a huge company. If they are having big meetings with 500-1000 and don’t have sufficient security then that’s not smart.

It is normal. Look around next time you’re at a tech conference. There’s probably armed guards somewhere. I went to WWDC 10 years ago and they had security. Same for SXSW.

Pretty much any mass gathering.

Unity isn’t some small org. They are worth billions and are a target even in normal times where people aren’t death threating them.

Of course, I agree that life shouldn’t be like this, but it is. We’re already in a low-trust society. We’ve been in it for decades.

Remember when Timothy McVeigh blew up just a regular federal building and killed normies and kids and whatnot? I think since then there’s been a lot more security. It’s more likely that Timothy McVeigh would be shot and killed if he was detected and tried to blow up his truck this time.

This is sad. And I’d prefer not if society could fix this so it’s not necessary.

But if I was going to a big all hands with a thousand coworkers and my employer didn’t have security that could protect me from some rando showing up with a gun, I wouldn’t go to that all hands. And I would probably not work for that company.

Not for any ideological reason. Just because I don’t want to die.

I have terrible news to break: you are pretty much never in a situation where you’re protected from a rando with a gun.

There's a reason people use the phrase "out of an abundance of caution": it means they don't really think the risk is significant enough to do anything, but they know they'll be blamed if something goes wrong after they didn't cancel.

> they know they'll be blamed if something goes wrong after they didn't cancel

Also you don’t want that on your conscience? Your colleagues’ lives and wellbeing against a corporate town hall.

If you give in to terrorists, the terrorists win. We have to have some amount of bravery in the face of implausible risks.

> We have to have some amount of bravery in the face of implausible risks

It’s a video game engine. They help make video games. They’re sending employees home, to continue working from home, and cancelling a town hall. These are stupid stakes to gamble against lives while a death threat is being investigated.

Yeah, sorry, unless I had more details in the articles that could convince me that the threat was credible, I'm going to fall back on my reasonable assumption that there is no actual risk here, just perceived risk.

> there is no actual risk here, just perceived risk

Which is fine for you, a bystander with no impact. If you’re management, on the other hand, you don’t get to wait for evidence of credibility. Because that evidence may come in blood-stained walls.

That's unnecessary hyperbole that brings nothing to the debate.

> hyperbole

What do you think a death threat entails?

here;s the update. TL;DR there was no credible threat, it was internal to the company and non-local. "The officers took a courtesy report" which is to say, there was no credible threat.

"""When officers arrived on scene, they met with a reporting party who informed them that an employee made a threat towards his employer using social media. The reporting party also said that the employee works at an out of state location for the company, but that they had been unable to reach the outside jurisdiction to make a report.

The reporting party was advised to contact the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred, and officers took a courtesy report."""

HN User Dekhn, I have to say, you sound willfully argumentative at this point.

You've taken the rhetorical position of fighting a rear guard action against common sense to support your point that the town hall should go forward. Your arguments have actually done more damage to that cause than good. And with these death threats, the cause of going forward with a town hall was already being viewed askance even before your rhetorical 'help'.

> This seems strange as a major corporation should be able to provide security to protect against death threats. And it should be the exact same security it provides normally for any large employee gathering.

"A large employee gathering" for a lot of companies happens every day in the office. How much security presence does the average office have, in your experience? In mine, the answer is not that much. I've never seen enough that I'd think the same level would be enough for death threats outside of things like defense contractors or military. Everywhere else it would be pretty easy to walk in, shoot the front desk people, take their badge, go anywhere in the building.

My current employer has armed security guards. It’s pretty big with over 10,000 people with each physical location having 1,000+. Guards check badges and vehicles.

Before that I worked for a fortune 100 company and our regional office was in a shared office building that had receptionists and 1-2 armed guards who kind of roamed. They weren’t always visible but they were usually in the lobby.

And I worked for startups they had no one at all and just a door with a key and then keycard scanner.

I’ve visited google and Microsoft’s campuses and they have pretty strict security. So I think it’s a size and budget thing.

It would be extremely difficult to walk into my employer, shoot the front desk people and take their badge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com