FBI Seeks Suspect's Web Game Records

wiredmikey writes "The Federal Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday asked the administrator of an Internet game to hand over records of communications by Jared Loughner, following a Wall Street Journal article describing disturbing messages the accused shooter wrote over a three-month period last year. In an interview, David McVittie, the administrator of the Web game Earth Empires, said he was contacted by the FBI, which requested the files, including 131 messages that Mr. Loughner wrote."

Comments

This one makes some sense

[SuperKendall]

The going after twitter messages looks kind of dubious, but this request has more grounding - it would be very easy for someone to use any online RPG to use as a conduit for messages if they thought someone might be monitoring email or phone. Given that the U.S. is treating him as a criminal suspect (which I'll leave the validity of to the side), this request seems pretty reasonable to build a case against someone.

Re:This one makes some sense

[spun]

Given that the U.S. is treating him as a criminal suspect (which I'll leave the validity of to the side),

Say what? You'll leave that to the side, will you? Well color me flabbergasted. He is technically a criminal suspect, because he has not been tried yet, but dozens of witnesses directly observed him committing murder. How can you question the validity of treating him as a criminal suspect?

Re:This one makes some sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Victoria, Canada... we had two young teens murder a young girl, it was all planned and VERY sad what they did to her.

They used WOW to communicate, and one guy admitted to another friend to killing her on WOW... and they got those records.

Not surprised at all. I'm actually very satisfied knowing that NO channel of communication should be considered '100% secure'. Face to face is the only place 'privacy' has a chance at existing... and I say chance, because technology can be anywhere at anytime.

Hopefully these messages give more insight... what an amazingly sad example of how broken our society is, and how helpless the parents are when their ADULT son is off the hook

Re:This one makes some sense

[fermat1313]

I don't think the prosecutors are worried about proving he did it. However, his defense will likely mount an insanity plea. Proof of pre-planning pretty much kills an insanity plea, so any evidence that they have that he pre-planned this is definitely important to the prosecution.

Also, I think they haven't ruled out that someone else was involved in the planning of the attack, so they are still looking for any evidence relating to this. Getting these records is simply competent lawyering by the prosecution.

Re:This one makes some sense

[SirGarlon]

For those who don't recognize the name, Jared Loughner is the fellow accused of the shooting spree in Tuscon that claimed six lives and seriously wounded a U.S. Representative. Given that he was arrested at the scene and two eyewitnesses reported having wrested a smoking gun from his grasp, I mean, innocent till proven guilty and all, but it would be hard to argue that calling him a "suspect" is jumping to conclusions.

Re:This one makes some sense

[Pharmboy]

Amazing how many take what you said out of context. As for the content, that is exactly what I was thinking. This isn't a fishing exposition, this is gathering evidence to demonstrate forethought of his actions, which is necessary for this type of investigation. Not only is it acceptable, but obviously necessary for them to be exercising due diligence in prosecuting the case, assuming they have any suspicion that the logs will provide ANY insight into his actions.

Re:This one makes some sense

[spun]

Lots of folks did do something to help. It is pretty clear that nearly everyone who knew him saw his descent into madness and tried to help in some way. But it is very hard to help the mentally ill against their will.

Re:This one makes some sense

[spun]

Even if he is mentally ill, he is a criminal suspect. Insanity is a possible defense against criminal charges, it does not negate criminal charges. At his trial, he might be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Until then, he is a criminal suspect.

Re:This one makes some sense

[man_of_mr_e]

An insanity defense has nothing to do with whether it was pre-planned or not.

Insanity is about whether the defendant knew what he was doing was wrong. Not whether or not it was planned.

Re:This one makes some sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Interviews with his friends say that he did not listen to talk radio, did not watch the news, was registered as an indepentant and did not vote. I cant recall the name of the video his friends said really set him off, but it was full of stuff on how christianity was a farce and 9/11 consiriacies. Nothing remotely points to him as a Tea Party member or a conservative, except for people that might have some political agenda to associate him with that.

Re:This one makes some sense

[Enderandrew]

He is a registered independent and never registered Republican, nor has any affiliation with the Tea Party.

He is pro-pot, anti-religion, and pro-Communism. He certainly doesn't fall within the demographic of any Republican or Tea Party member that I know of. He did have a personal history of hatred with Giffords and that appears to be his motivation. But feel free to continue to invent lies at your leisure.

Re:This one makes some sense

[spun]

Nothing on the record shows he was pro communism, he happened to have read Marx, but he also read Ayn Rand. Hmmm, pro-pot, anti-religion, read Marx and Rand? To me, that sounds more like a libertarian than a liberal or a conservative.

Re:This one makes some sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even *read* anything about it? Or are you just making things up as you go?

He had a *personal* thing with the congresswoman. He had asked her a question a few years ago and got a smoke up your ass answer. He took it personally. He asked her a question and she did not answer it. So somehow he took that to mean 'she must die'. I am sure he has a logic train here. You dont just go crazy. He was building up to this for a few years.

Re:This one makes some sense

[spun]

Your fiction is a fiction. Nobody was claiming he was a Tea Partier or conservative, they were claiming that crazy people are like powder kegs, and that pundits on the right have been throwing lit matches everywhere hoping to set one off. They have succeeded in setting off the crazies again and again in the last few years, and they will continue to try to set off the crazies against their opponents on the left. The way I see it, pundits on the right have gotten away with murder, more than once. They know full well that their words will have an impact on crazy people. Look at that loon arrested for trying to blow up the Tides Foundation. Never heard of it? Then you must not watch Glenn Beck, he is the only person on national television ever to mention the Tides Foundation, and he portrayed them as anti-American. But of course, the crazy who tried to blow them up is not his fault, even though said crazy would never even have known about the Tides Foundation were it not for the likes of Glenn Beck.

Re:This one makes some sense

[Gunkerty Jeb]

Too many witnesses. This case is open and shut. Any information requests, while they may end up using them in court, are done primarily out of curiosity. The FBI is just trying to figure out why people lose it and rampage, and they will likely be upset when they discover there is no reason.

Re:This one makes some sense

[Attila Dimedici]

It is important to be aware that the question he asked her was something very close to, "How do you know words mean anything?" How do you answer that question when it comes at you out of nowhere? So, her answer wasn't a politician's non-answer to a politically dangerous question. it was a non-answer to a question that didn't really have an answer (at least in that context).

Re:This one makes some sense

[Omestes]

Have you read anything about this? Reading his rants, and reading accounts from his friends and acquaintances makes it clear that this is probably not a case of "hornies". A couple years ago he attended an event that Giffords was holding and asked her something like "how can their be government if all words are lies" or something close to that, she didn't answer him, he was mad.

He was probably experiencing an escalating case of schizophrenia (judging by the course of events, his words, and his writing style), she was a target since she was "controlling grammar" or such. I'm also guessing he did it to draw attention to his "philosophy", hoping an event like that would make people read (watch) his stuff, and realize the truth of the "new currency", and "grammar"... (Notice the shear amount of crazy?).

This topic has made me doubly sick. I'm, obviously, sickened that this disturbed person slaughtered innocent people. I'm also sickened that we somehow want to turn it into bullshit politics*, and idiotic partisan rhetoric. Doing so completely misses the point, and mocks the actual event. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party movement, or the GOP had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and a bona fide socialist, I have nothing against calling out the Republicans on their crap, but this isn't the appropriate event for it. It is actually a bit distasteful. The kid was insane, and not obviously politically motivated (at least motivated in any way us sane folk can really comprehend).

    Hell, before a single fact actually rolled down the media pipeline, we were already blaming Palin. Before we KNEW anything at all outside of the fact that someone shot a democrat and a bunch of innocent bystanders we already were ramping up the partisan rhetoric. And now we're running with it, even when the available facts point in the other direction, and we still don't even have half the facts.

Do these people here on Slashdot realize that by blaming the GOP, they sound just like the idiots that blame violent video games for violence?

Sorry of the rant, it needs to be said.

* This part isn't aimed at you, just a convenient place to put it.

Re:This one makes some sense

[rickb928]

You are not intereacting with the sort of Tea Party members I have. In fact, my expeience is the opposite of yours - the Tea Party members I've intreacted with are entirely focused on issues of taxation, immigration, healthcare financing, and states' rights. And they are a healthy mix of various races, admittedly almost all openly heterosexual, both married and unmarried, and also overhelmingly spiritual, mostly Christian.

If they hated "everyone who isn't a rich white protestant heterosexual in a traditional family role.", about one half would hate the other half. And the other half would hate themselves. That's not entirely implausible, but usually the self-loathers don't bother to go so far out of their way to do so. They have ample opportunity to hate themselves before they get their teeth brushed in the morning, no need to form a political movement to do so publicly.

More precisely, you're full of it. Enjoy. Sad life.

Re:This one makes some sense

[X0563511]

You don't just go crazy.

You've not met many unstable people, have you?

Re:This one makes some sense

[Lost Engineer]

Yes, he's obviously guilty but his mental state and motive will come into play in the sentencing phase where any messages/postings may be relevant.

Re:This one makes some sense

[timeOday]

There is a certain philosophical consistency to liking both "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf", but Ayn Rand doesn't fit there anywhere.

I disagree. They are all consistent with a simpleton - a person attracted to simplistic solutions to complex real-world problems. But that's completely normal for a 20 year old.

Re:This one makes some sense

[Omestes]

The fact that Palin & the GOP's rhetoric included references to reloading, using the ammo box instead of the ballot box, "taking out" bad politicians, removing the liberal disease, and putting targetting crosshairs on a map while listed the name of the politican who just happened to be shot in the head, are a complete coincidence.

Yes, probably. I'm not agreeing with or defending rhetoric, I find it distasteful, and find it one of the more depressing trends to strike my country in a very long time. While Palin and the GOPs rhetoric is nasty, there is no evidence that they lead to this event. That is the point. It is as good an explanation as the NASA connection (Loughner believed the Mars rover was a lie, Giffords' husband is an astronaut), meaning not very good, since it is nothing more than speculation. Or that he said he liked Mein Kampf, and she was a Jew. Or that he is in Arizona so this somehow comes back to immigration policy (I, surprisingly, haven't seen that one in the wild yet).

So, since it is a total coincidence, should we stop examining violent rhetoric that has been said by politicians or should we take a moment to reflect? Why should we be concerned about the words that politicians use, knowing that there are disturbed people who might engage in violence?

Never said that, we SHOULD examine the violent rhetoric, even if this even has nothing to do with it. Just because they look nice when you link them together, mean they are linked, or should be associated with each other. By doing so your using this tragedy towards your own ends, which is a bit disgusting, no matter how good your ends are.

If it comes out that there is a connection to the current GOP rhetoric, then by all means make a point of it. These is no causal connection yet discovered though. If we find Sarah Palin posters, and a bust of Glenn Beck wreathed in flowers, then we can use this to show how partisan (not just Republican) rhetoric is dangerous.

The infamous crosshairs map may not be to blame in any way, but it is still irresponsible. Personally, I have a very hard time believing that this guy was obsessed with a member of congress to the point of attacking her, yet had never read a blog post about h

I'm sure he has. But his previous experience with her was definitely not a "tea party" question. "How can there be government if all words are a lie" isn't the type of thing I've heard any Tea Party person say. I doubt it is a Palin speaking point. It is a strange a deluded question spawned from a sick mind.

We don't even know if Giffords was attacked because she was a politician or because she was a high visibility target.

I think there is a great deal of difference between playing a game like Grand theft auto, and listening to a politician say that their opponent is destroying this country and ending our way of life.

You realize that politicians have been saying that as long as their has been politicians saying things, right?

NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO DO WITH POLITICS.

Re:This one makes some sense

[smitty97]

ditto

Re:This one makes some sense

[cawpin]

At his trial, he might be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

And this is one of the major flaws in the American justice system IMO. Not Guilty by reason of insanity shouldn't exist. The proper finding is Guilty BUT insane.

Re:This one makes some sense

[PraiseBob]

In reality, less than 5% of those who plead insanity are successful in the attempt. When they do succeed in their insanity plea, it doesn't let them off the hook. They are remanded to a mental hospital instead of a prison, and spend on average, a longer time in the hospital than they would in a prison for the same crime.

The insanity plea isn't a get out of jail free card. It means rather than jail, you spend years of your life in a padded room, possibly strapped down or restrained in jackets, and fed high doses of anti-psychotic narcotics.

They are building a case

[Dunbal]

Why exactly is this news or a surprise? Will everyone be shocked because they request credit card, banking and cell phone information too?

Seems fair

[gman003]

Obviously, they have plenty of probable cause connecting him to an actually serious crime, and they probably obtained a warrant in this case to get these records. While Loughner may not have left explicit notes along the lines of "I'm going to shoot people", it would definitely be relevant for the purpose of establishing his mental state.

Not every search-and-seizure is objectionable, you know. Sometimes, the government is actually doing its job properly.

Re:'disturbing to who?'

[dougmc]

This is just another example of our fascist dictatorial government shitting on free speech.

Really? Is his right to free speech being infringed upon simply because the government is looking to see what he said?

If you want to say something but don't want anybody else to know what you said, mumble to yourself. But if you speak out loud, don't be surprised if somebody heard you.

And "freedom of speech" was never about "no consequences for your speech".

Re:'disturbing to who?'

[spun]

No, it is not. You do not understand what "fascist" and "dictatorial" actually mean. Plus, exhortation to violence is not protected speech. Finally, even if it were protected speech, the government is allowed to access it with a warrant while building a criminal case. You, sir, are an idiot.

Re:'disturbing to who?'

[lgw]

I'm pretty sure "exhortation to violence" is actually protected speech (in the US), as long as it's not immediate violence - a clear and present danger. If a skinhead website wants to go on a rant about how the Jews are evil and should be killed, without suggesting any specific and immediate illegal acts ("are there any queers in the theater tongiht? Get em up against the wall!"), that's protected. Eventually we'll fuck the constitution yet again and outlaw unpopular speech (aka hate speech), but it hasn't quite happened yet.

Re:'disturbing to who?'

[spun]

Correct, it must be an immediate exhortation to violence. Sorry if that was unclear.

Incriminating text

[gmuslera]

According with several FPS game logs, we have a lot of mass murderers around. They even found there who sniped the player Jfk

CLARIFICATION: Nothing was taken from "ingame"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an administrator for earth empires, though I'm not the one mentioned by name in the summary. I'm posting AC for obvious reasons.

The FBI only wanted information from an alliance hosting site related to the game. I believe an appropriate equivalent would be a WoW guild setting up a forum to discuss strategy, organize raids, and things like that. Information was obtained from the forum, but not from the game itself.

The alliance hosting site in question happens to be run by one of the game's administrators. Providing information to the FBI did not violate the site's privacy policy in this case because the site's community manager had already leaked information to the WSJ. Even if we had wished to fight the subpoena, we do not have the legal resources to do so.

I hope that this provides a little more context and clarifies the situation.