FBI Arrests Alleged Attacker Who Tweeted Seizure-Inducing Strobe at a Writer (theverge.com)

From a report on The Verge: An arrest has been made three months after someone tweeted a seizure-inducing strobe at writer and Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald. The Dallas FBI confirmed the arrest to The Verge today, and noted that a press release with more details is coming. Eichenwald, who has epilepsy, tweeted details of the arrest and said that more than 40 other people also sent him strobes after he publicized the first attack. Their information is now with the FBI, he says. It isn't clear whether these "different charges" relate to similar online harassment incidents or something else entirely.

Comments

That's Like Something Out Of Neuromancer

[lobiusmoop]

"At 12:04:03, every screen in the building strobed for eighteen seconds in a frequency that produced seizures in a susceptible segment of Sense/Net employees."

AFK != IRL

[serviscope_minor]

Turns out the internet is as much real life as, well, real life. If it's possible to physically injure someone over the internet, then it's just as illegal to attempt to do so as it is in real life.

"it's just a joke", "for the lolz" or "mah freeze peach" does not make punching someone in the face legal no matter if you think it's funny or are trying to raise a political point.

And being on the internet is certainly not a free pass to do illegal things.

Re:AFK != IRL

[freeze128]

How do you make a tweet strobe? Did he tweet a URL to some crappy flash-based website, or an animated gif, or video? Certainly there are twitter front ends that can read the tweet to you via voice, to help prevent this sort of thing from happening again. Maybe that's something that this writer should look into.

Re:AFK != IRL

[Tempest_2084]

>>mah freeze peach

This is sooo going to be my signature line

Re:AFK != IRL

[misexistentialist]

Except all the financial fraud done over the internet which is barely investigated. Organized crime is boring, but if a trivial incident makes the news then a prosecutor hits pause on his porn player and files charges.

Re:AFK != IRL

[borcharc]

I really hope this one goes to trial and then some interesting appeals. It's not clear what statute they claim was violated here but I am not buying the argument that a criminal act was committed.

Re:AFK != IRL

[Anonymous Coward]

> does not make punching someone in the face legal no matter if you think it's funny or are trying to raise a political point.

But NAZI's!!!

Re:AFK != IRL

[DogDude]

Seems to me like it'd be simple assault.

Re:AFK != IRL

[Anonymous Coward]

Want some cheese with that whine? Illegal is illegal. Just the fact that you think something else is more important doesn't make your assholery legal, or even acceptable.

Re:AFK != IRL

[Anonymous Coward]

Would a strobing tweet read by a screen reader say "It's On. It's Off. It's On. It's Off. It's On. It's Off."?

Re:AFK != IRL

[Anonymous Coward]

"it's just a joke", "for the lolz" or "mah freeze peach"

Most of contributors to GeoCities should be in prison. They did it "for the lolz" without even knowing.

Re:AFK != IRL

[ImprovOmega]

Intent being the key difference.

Posting a strobe flashy gif animation on a website? Not a big deal. Kinda douchey, but not a crime (even if someone does get a seizure from it but only because causing a seizure was not the intended result).

Sending a strobe flashy to gif to someone you know who has a seizure disorder and accompanying it with a message that says something to the effect of "I hope you get a seizure from this"? Definitely illegal because the stated intent is to induce a seizure (even if one is *not* induced).

It's kind of the online equivalent of mailing peanut dust to someone with a peanut allergy. Even if they don't get a bad reaction from it (say, because his mom opened it first and cleaned up before it hit him) then you will still be prosecuted for attempted assault because of the intent behind it.

Re: AFK != IRL

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot that can't tell the difference between physical harm an your little ego.

Re:AFK != IRL

[rahvin112]

The key to the case will be the mens rea, if the sender knew about the epilepsy and the image was intended to cause harm they've got a good case. The defense will be trying to show the sender didn't know but I imagine they'll tear his computer apart and find out if it was intentional.

The fact is that something like this should net an assault charge or depending on the severity even an attempted murder charge. There was intent to harm and harm was done. IMO this isn't any different than smearing someone with peanut butter that's allergic to it. You've got someone with a disability that if knowingly provoked could do severe harm or even kill the person.

Re:AFK != IRL

[AmiMoJo]

What do you call it when someone does something they know could injure or kill someone else? Reckless endangerment it something?

Re:AFK != IRL

[Crashmarik]

Well seeing as the caption was

Here's a seizure for you

Kind of hard to argue innocent intent.

Re:AFK != IRL

[jnork]

I was thinking that a good physical-world parallel would be deliberately spraying peanut oil in aerosol or mist form in the vicinity of somebody allergic to peanuts. It's a form of physical attack that would not harm a typical person, but would be deadly to the target (and any bystanders who happened to share the allergy).

Or perhaps wearing or releasing a scent known to trigger a certain person's asthma attacks.

Re: AFK != IRL

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not that bright.

The concept you're missing is intent.

To put this into idiot: Most things could harm or kill.

Don't present opinion as fact and don't speculate on things you do not understand.

Re: AFK != IRL

[Anonymous Coward]

And you don't actually understand mens rea (intent.) Many people think they do, but they really only understand it from shows / films dealing with murder, which carries the very highest and hardest types of intent to prove.

It's not always just "I intended to kill him and I killed him." (Murder)
It is also "I performed an intentional action that was likely to cause harm and it killed him" (voluntary manslaughter)
Or simply "I performed an intentional action and the outcome was that it killed him." (reckless or negligent manslaughter or a lesser charge.)

In many cases, simply forming the intent to perform a voluntary action (e.g., you reached out and opened a door instead of accidentally bumping it open) is sufficient "intent" for a lesser offense.

I think it was Justice Cardozo who said something to the effect of, "We don't hold stupid people to a diminished standard because there are an awful lot of stupid people who are out there causing harm." It might not be attempted murder, but it will be something.

 

Re: AFK != IRL

[Anonymous Coward]

I am ok with summary executions for anyone using the "it's just a prank, bro" defense.

Re:AFK != IRL

[borcharc]

simple assault is not a federal crime even if we were to stipulate that it applies here. The further claim that cyberstalking happened is also very weak. Stalking needs more than a few emails over a very short period of time.

Re:AFK != IRL

[borcharc]

you are describing a tort claim, not a federal crime at the end of the day we are still talking about minimal damages and harm. I think an argument for a simple assault may hold a little water but I am unaware of a federal statute that covers simple assault. We are talking about a minor misdemeanor at most, but that ignores the real free speech issues. I am also skeptical of the victims claim of having a seizure. Perhaps it's true and the evidence will show that the victim does not take antiseizure meds that are required to have a drivers license, but I remain skeptical.

Re: AFK != IRL

[Anonymous Coward]

It is when crossing state lines, as happened in this case.

Re:AFK != IRL

[Plumpaquatsch]

Except all the financial fraud done over the internet which is barely investigated. Organized crime is boring, but if a trivial incident makes the news then a prosecutor hits pause on his porn player and files charges.

Here's a tip: if you do something illegal, try to stay anonymous. Complaining the cops should try to catch those who do first when you are caught doesn't prove you're not a criminal, it proves you are a whiney dumb criminal.

Re:AFK != IRL

[geoskd]

simple assault is not a federal crime even if we were to stipulate that it applies here. The further claim that cyberstalking happened is also very weak. Stalking needs more than a few emails over a very short period of time.

Any crime that crosses state lines becomes an FBI matter. That is *why* the FBI exists. One of their primary purposes is to have jurisdiction when no single state agency would clearly have jurisdiction. Their purview has expanded a bit since the agency was created, but that is the basic idea behind it. The failure to do that fundamental job in all respects led to the creation of the DHS.

Re:AFK != IRL

[geoskd]

you are describing a tort claim, not a federal crime at the end of the day we are still talking about minimal damages and harm. I think an argument for a simple assault may hold a little water but I am unaware of a federal statute that covers simple assault.

I have an epileptic son. Seizures are not the trivial things you seem to think they are. A grand mal seizure is often life threatening as it causes everything in the brain to go off kilter, including autonomic functions. When my son start having a seizure, he stops breathing, and if it goes on long enough, his heart stops beating. This has only happened once, and he had to be resuscitated. Most of the time, the lack of breathing induces hypoxia and that stops the seizure, but it is by no means a sure thing, as the hypoxia can prevent the normal resumption of autonomic functions after the seizure stops.

The instrument this assailant was using was a deadly weapon. That makes this assault with a deadly weapon, or attempted murder depending on what they decide his intent was. Any way you slice it, this guy belongs behind bars, if only to protect the general public from his overarching ignorance coupled with his complete indifference to the consequences of his actions, and his demonstrated ability to access and deploy deadly weapons.

Re:AFK != IRL

[Plumpaquatsch]

simple assault is not a federal crime even if we were to stipulate that it applies here.

What about an assault crossing state borders? Sending something harmful with the intent to injure via the USPS is a federal offense, is sending one with e.g. UPS also? If it is, can this also be applied to forms of telecommunication?

Re: AFK != IRL

[Plumpaquatsch]

You're not that bright.

The concept you're missing is intent.

“You deserve a seizure for your post.” doesn't sound like intent to you?

Re: AFK != IRL

[Plumpaquatsch]

You are an idiot that can't tell the difference between physical harm an your little ego.

No, he just shows the same entitlement the Trumpist who send the seizure tweet felt. “You deserve a seizure for your post.” is basically a much shorter form of the same sentiment.

Re:AFK != IRL

[rochrist]

Ok, coward.

Re:AFK != IRL

[Pseudonym]

It's not clear what statute they claim was violated here [...]

It's not in TFA, but it's also not hard to find. The guy in question has been charged with stalking.

No.

[mcmonkey]

No one was arrested because they sent a picture someone didn't like.

If the facts as reported are true, there was real intent and possibility of injury.

Re:No.

[ausekilis]

No, but people are arrested or censored for saying things someone doesn't like. Just look up George Carlin's 7 words you can't say on television.

In this case, it was a picture sent (most likely) with the intent to injure or induce a seizure. There's a difference between offensive and injurious intent.

Re:No.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

He wasn't arrested for the flashy GIF. He was arrested for the accompanying tweet text:

"
Hey dude, jack up the brightness and contrast. ....
Done yet?
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! You're so convulsing on the floor!!! I gotcha good!!!
"

Re:No.

[sycodon]

I bet it won't be long before someone claims text in an email they received triggered some reaction

Re:No.

[Rick Schumann]

There's a difference between offensive and injurious intent.

Here's the problem with that, though: Who gets to decide what the difference really is? Consider this scenario:

Someone sets up someone else for an ostensibly harmless practical joke.
The joke happens, but the target is injured in the process, has to go to the ER. Charges are filed, a civil suit for damages is filed.

That's a rather extreme example, but well within the realm of possibility; the perpetrator of the joke can claim there was no intent to cause harm, but may be lying about that, but it doesn't matter. Harm was caused as a direct result, and he may well be criminally and civilly libel. Now, substitute sending someone something over the internet. Does it matter if there was intent to cause harm or not?

The problem is setting a legal precedent. If there is legal precedent that just sending someone a picture of something that causes harm of some sort over the Internet can be considered assault, then it potentially opens a Pandoras Box of legal troubles. What if someone is trolling Vegans or animal rights activists by sending gory pictures or videos of animals being slaughtered, and they claim they were caused harm by that? If there's legal precedent to back that claim up, then it's not an outrageous idea that sending anything to anyone over the Internet can be dangerous. Pretty much anyone could be arrested for sending anyone anything, if they can claim they where 'harmed' by it. Do we really want to live in that sort of world? Certainly, the standard (at least in a civil lawsuit) of what's considered reasonable would still stand, but our legal system could be clogged up by letigious people claiming they were injured by a picture.

Re:No.

[david_thornley]

This is not just sending someone a picture, and the courts are pretty good at distinguishing between real injury and claimed harm. The legal system already gets plugged up by idiots looking for revenge or payday.

Re:No.

[DaHat]

Better example: Gregory Allen Elliot who was put on trial for what amounted to disagreeing with a couple of people on Twitter.

Not quite to the level of a crime? True, but I didn't mention that the people he disagreed with felt 'threatened' by him.

Re:No.

[Fire_Wraith]

Yes, the intent matters.

If I make a salad that happens to have nuts in it and serve it to you, not knowing you're allergic, that's an unfortunate accident, but innocuous.

If, however, I know you're deathly allergic to peanuts, and grind up peanut dust to put in it, and mention to a friend that I hope you choke on it, that's an entirely different matter.

Re:No.

[PopeRatzo]

Here's the problem with that, though: Who gets to decide what the difference really is? Consider this scenario:

Gee, if we only had some sort of official organization for determining injurious intent. Maybe it could be called a "court" and the people presiding would be called, "judges". Yeah, someone should totally invent that.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have nothing intelligent to say, so I'll nitpick like the useless faggot I am

KYS

Re:No.

[Rick Schumann]

Yeah sure. Let's set the stage for even more frivolous lawsuits, and more law enforcement man-hours wasted.

Re: No.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're acting like this didn't already exist.

But it did, and has long been the way of handling such incidents.

Reminds me of the Robot Chicken parody that has the Nerds on trial, because all too many of their actions were illegal.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Precedents are ignored in court rooms across the nation every day. Not attempting to prosecute a crime because you are concerned about setting a precedent is just so much BS. People equate a precedent like its a fucking Constitutional Amendment because they are morons. And this current generation of morons will destroy the country before Trump even gets a chance to do it. We have a court system and it may not be perfect but you are free to walk into court and defend yourself in front of a jury and let them judge whether any harm was done. If you don't care for the justice system then don't commit a crime. If you are in doubt about what constitutes a crime you best do some research and figure it out yourself.

Re: No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop obfuscating the topic. It's knowingly sending someone a picture that is known to have the possibility of causing a seizure.

I am all for free speech, but this isn't the hill to die on.

Re:No.

[borcharc]

Thankfully we live in a civilized world where possibility of injury isn't relevant and only real injury is. If we were to believe that a minor seizure happened to a person who has a history of seizures we are talking about only a very minor injury. Maybe a punch in the face for the average person, not quite the federal offense that is implied here.

Re:No.

[santiago]

In this case, it was a picture sent (most likely) with the intent to injure or induce a seizure. There's a difference between offensive and injurious intent.

Intent seems pretty easy to establish here, seeing as how the message accompanying the picture was “You deserve a seizure for your post.”

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

People who have epilepsy can lose consciousness and any number of bad things can occur from the situation.
A person who has a seizure can strike their head against an object (including a hard floor) or a break a bone.
They can drown if they fall into water or receive a bad burn by coming in contact with a heat source.
Lets not forget the possibility of sitting behind the wheel of car and checking mail while sitting at a red light.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Maybe a punch in the face for the average person

Also known as felony assault.

Re:No.

[Plumpaquatsch]

No, but people are arrested or censored for saying things someone doesn't like. Just look up George Carlin's 7 words you can't say on television.

In this case, it was a picture sent (most likely) with the intent to injure or induce a seizure. There's a difference between offensive and injurious intent.

Nobody was censored for sending an image, the image was send to censor somebody who wrote the truth about Trump.

Re:No.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Thankfully we live in a civilized world where possibility of injury isn't relevant and only real injury is.

Yeah, exactly - that' why sending mail bombs is completely legal if nobody gets hurt.

Re: No.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Rick is so wrong or stupid, then how come his comments are modded up, and you're still a faggot AC, sitting at zero or negative one? LOL you're useless, KYS.

Re:No.

[Pseudonym]

Certain people send rape and death threats all the time with the intent provoke a reaction. Occasionally some of them are arrested, and it's never the reaction that's the issue. It's usually the threat and possibly the stalking.

Re:No.

[Pseudonym]

I've witnessed escalating shouting matches between neighbours which end up with the police arriving. The law becoming involved in such cases is not new.

Just like the McDonald's coffee case, a lot of people don't get why this case went to trial. There were genuine disagreements on what actually happened, and it took the investigation and trial to sort it all out.

There was at least one impersonation account involved, and as such, none of the actually-threatening tweets were from Elliot. But what the case ultimately hinged on was whether or not Elliot was expected to know that the recipients were being harassed (which they undeniably were, by other people) and that because of this, what he said would cause them to legitimately fear for their safety. He had no reason to know that there was an active harassment campaign because Guthrie had blocked him, so he couldn't see it.

In the end, the correct outcome was reached. So the system works, I guess.

Good

[Schezar]

If something like this is done with intent to harm and knowledge of the likelihood of harm, it's tantamount to punching him in the face.

Re:Good

[Triklyn]

i'd be worried if he actually got convicted of anything. is it really that far from assault with a deadly weapon, to negligent homicide?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not "tantamount to punching him in the face". It's both more and less serious than that.

It's less serious because the epileptic recipient didn't have to acknowledge the tweet. At all. That makes this roughly equivalent to the old "splut enclosed" gag on Garfield and Friends. Garfield would get a gift box with a tag that says "splut enclosed". He would always ask, as an aside, "what's a splut?" He would then open the gift and a spring-loaded pie would hit him in the face. If he had simply not opened the gag gift box, he would not have gotten "splutted". (Ew.)

This situation is more serious than a face punch because an epileptic seizure can have serious and/or life-threatening, long-term effects.

Re:Good

[wisnoskij]

The problem with this is that their is no good side to this. Maybe loads of people will be now be charged and jailed over what amounts to whiplash. Some injury that cannot be proven, but easily alleged.

And you know right now he is being bombarded on all sides with hundreds of similar tweets. The first forum I read about this on started immediately to send similar images to him in retaliation. Someone in Somalia will never have to worry about the FBI arresting them for an "assault Tweet", so will not think twice about sending one.

Re:Good

[hackwrench]

Except Twitter allows embedded pictures now and tweets "just appear" when you go to your Twitter page.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this is that their is no good side to this. Maybe loads of people will be now be charged and jailed over what amounts to whiplash. Some injury that cannot be proven, but easily alleged.

And you know right now he is being bombarded on all sides with hundreds of similar tweets. The first forum I read about this on started immediately to send similar images to him in retaliation. Someone in Somalia will never have to worry about the FBI arresting them for an "assault Tweet", so will not think twice about sending one.

Next season on "The Internet Ruined My Life!"

Re:Good

[aevan]

And were I suffering a condition where flashing lights would debilitate me, I'd have a script/block/setting to prevent animations and flashes (already block videos just for their irritation when unexpected/unwanted). Twitter can do what it wants, but I as the person surfing the net can simply say 'no'.

Not going to defend the person sending it: he demonstrated intent to injure and was successful in it. Do however feel due diligence is required if you have a medical condition that is visually triggered...and surf the net.

Re:Good

[Calydor]

I haven't seen the image or the tweet, but if it gets masked as something simple and innocent, say a video claiming to be source material for whatever he's working on - he's an author, after all - which suddenly cuts to a strobe light ... That's deliberate.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You presume something that most people on slashdot over the years have said is impossible--a software solution that screens objectionable content.
Also, I think the strobe effect has to be at a certain frequency to trigger a seizure. The guy might be able to watch the Simpsons go to Japan episode and only get concerned by the strobe frequency in the episode, but not have a seizure because the show producers made sure that the frequency was NOT one that caused seizures.

Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that this guy was targeted by alt-reichers and white supremacists because he was investigating some of Donald Trump's criminal activity.

Send this criminal to jail. The tweet was sent with the intent of triggering a seizure - that's worthy of a couple of years in the slammer, at least.

Re: Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Send all those nazis to jail.
Lock the bastards up. Or a bullet in head.
And nothing of value would be lost.

Glad the FBI are doing their jobs

[WillAffleckUW]

Eventually all these alt-white neo-Nazis will be brought to justice, no matter where they are.

Re:Glad the FBI are doing their jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

>"alt-white neo-Nazis"

LOL.

Re:Glad the FBI are doing their jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

and just what exactly are the 'alt right neo nazis' doing against you?

You need to know when to have some humility and mind your own damn business. Tending the community is one thing but you have gone too far. You aren't being fair, you aren't letting the other side have their say, and that isn't a good move, because let me tell you, the 'right' is a lot stronger than the 'left'.

See: Nazi germany nearly defeating the entire western war machine plus russia.

You better just be reasonable and understanding instead of a hairtrigger freakout, thats how we get these god damned wars started

Re:Glad the FBI are doing their jobs

[WillAffleckUW]

You better just be reasonable and understanding instead of a hairtrigger freakout, thats how we get these god damned wars started

There is no reasonable when dealing with alt-white neo-Nazis.

Re:Glad the FBI are doing their jobs

[david_thornley]

Speaking as a leftist who has a personal hatred of Nazis (on top of all the general hatred), I think we need to wait until they violate criminal law before they're brought to justice. I do believe in these formalities.

Re:Glad the FBI are doing their jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

N
I
G
G
E
R

Re:Glad the FBI are doing their jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

and just what exactly are the 'alt right neo nazis' doing against you?

Embarrassing the hell out of me and my country, at more "unpresidented" levels every day.

Re: Glad the FBI are doing their jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Naa, things went smoother when we shot Nazis on sight.

He looks Russian

[Anonymous Coward]

Bald head and green eyes.

A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[brainchill]

A strobe gif in an email is illegal, really? How are you going to prosecute that?

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[Lord Kano]

If the government wants to make an example of you, it doesn't really matter what you did or what the law says.

This is true the world over, even in a "free" country.

LK

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dude, jack up the brightness and contrast. ....
Done yet?
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! You're so convulsing on the floor!!! I gotcha good!!!

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[david_thornley]

There are laws against deliberately causing people physical harm, no matter what the means used.

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Attempting to injure someone is illegal, yes.

The law doesn't try to carefully enumerate every method by which you might injure someone so that a clever criminal can say "haha! I invented a new weapon, so now it is legal for me to injure people with it because it isn't on the list of weapons that existed decades ago when the law was written!"

The law says attempting to hurt someone with a weapon that might be lethal is "assault with a deadly weapon", so if the prosecutor can show that you intended to hurt someone, and you used something that might cause death, you can be convicted. The law does not attempt to enumerate every weapon that could possibly be used to hurt or kill someone; the prosecutor can present evidence that you knew the thing you used was dangerous and could cause death.

If you send a strobe gif to your programming partner with a note saying "hey, look what I created with my leet javascript skills!", you probably couldn't be convicted because the prosecutor couldn't show intent. But if you are bragging in writing about how you are going to cause someone to have a seizure by sending them a strobe gif, then it probably isn't hard to convince a jury that you intended to cause inujury, and it shouldn't be hard to find an expert witness to testify that it is quite possble to die from an epileptic seizure.

As for how it can be prosecuted, well, same way as anything else. Lawyers show up in court and show evidence, and attempt to convince a jury that you violated a law. The specifics vary by law, but generally "did you do X" combined with "did you have intent to violate the law when you did X".

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bodily assault"? I wish it carried corporal punishment, it's no different than those assholes who thinks it's cool shining green lasers in other people's eyes.

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[brainchill]

We're treading dangerously into territory where you're trying to read minds. You would have to prove intent ..... you would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you intended to and actually believed that your actions would harm someone. The burden of proof would be very particular because sending that same email to 99% of the population, even including many epileptics, would do no harm.

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[brainchill]

It's actually very, very different. A powerful green laser shined into someone's eyes will cause harm to exactly 100% of the people or animals on earth ..... a strobe gif might cause a seizure in .0001% of the population and wouldn't even effect the majority of controlled epileptics.

Re: A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The person literally said his intent. In the message. Directly and precisely.

Of course intent is important and this is an open and shut case when it comes to it.

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[tlhIngan]

We're treading dangerously into territory where you're trying to read minds. You would have to prove intent ..... you would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you intended to and actually believed that your actions would harm someone. The burden of proof would be very particular because sending that same email to 99% of the population, even including many epileptics, would do no harm.

Well, that tweet was sent with a note of "you deserve a seizure" alongside it, which pretty much confirms intent to harm

Sometimes it can be hard to confirm intent. This time, it was pretty obvious the sender intentionally sent that eeizure-inducing image hoping it would cause a seizure.

No mind reading tricks needed here - the sender made it plainly obvious they were intentionally sending it to harm the guy. Maybe in other cases, but not this one.

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[tlhIngan]

But if you are bragging in writing about how you are going to cause someone to have a seizure by sending them a strobe gif, then it probably isn't hard to convince a jury that you intended to cause inujury, and it shouldn't be hard to find an expert witness to testify that it is quite possble to die from an epileptic seizure.

The twitter account also had DMs where he'd bragged about how he hoped he'd die, and there was a Wikipedia page with an edit showing the victim's death the next day.

It's stupidly obvious he was hoping he'd kill the guy.

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[gnasher719]

A strobe gif in an email is illegal, really? How are you going to prosecute that?

Well, you have the police investigate, they find evidence that you sent this email, then they find evidence that you sent it with the intent of hurting someone, then you get sent, to court, then you get convicted, then you go to jail. That's how this gets prosecuted.

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

And epileptic seizures can be fatal, so what's your point? Both behaviours are dangerous, completely ruthless and quite deliberate. Probabilities doesn't even enter the equation, because neither is something a normally functioning human being should do, especially if you like in the case at hand, damned well know that the recipient is epileptic.

The only reason to do it is because you're out to cause someone harm.

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[serviscope_minor]

We're treading dangerously into territory where you're trying to read minds.

No, we'really not. It's so old it even has a name in latin.

mens rea

a.k.a. "a guilty mind". It's only been the cornerstone of the justice system since about 1215, maybe earlier.

Re:A strobe gif in an email is illegal?

[hey!]

A strobe gif in an email is illegal, really? How are you going to prosecute that?

Well it depends on the state. In most states you bring charges to a grand jury which examines the basis for the charge and issues and indictment, then Bob's your uncle. In some states you can file what's called an "information", which leads to a preliminary hearing. Either way, you have to show that you have some basis for prosecution, and then it's on to the jury trial.

In the jury trial, you have to convince ALL twelve jurors that the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. To do that you have to show two elements:

actus reus An actual act, omission, or possession which contravenes the law. mens rea "Guilty mind" -- intent to do the unlawful thing.

What's confusing to people here is that the same actus reus can be criminal or innocent, depending on intent and awareness. If someone slips a piece of shoplifted property into your pocket, your possession is unlawful, but you aren't aware of it so you don't have mens rea. If you serve someone with a deadly nut allergy food that will kill him, whether that is attempted murder depends on whether or not you know he will be harmed.

So to answer your question, to prosecute sending a gif, you have to show that the person sending it was aware that it would cause harm at a minimum. If you can show he intended to cause harm that's even better. In this case, the offending gif was accompanied by this text:

You deserve a seizure for your post.

Saying that seems amazingly stupid. But the delusion you can escape legal responsibility for assaulting someone by using means that wouldn't work on everyone is pretty stupid too.

Snowcrash

[Anonymous Coward]

Prepare for the namshub of Enki

P-300 Waves

[globaljustin]

I wonder if the reason the FBI took this meme sent on Twitter so seriously has something to do with the alleged "brainwashing" neuroscience techniques pioneered by Delgado and others.

Flashing memes get sent by the millions over the internet daily, some sent with the intent of causing seizure. Why take this one so seriously?

There seems to be a very limited number of answers, so it makes me wonder. This just seems so non-sensical and asymetric...punishment does not fit the crime whatsoever.

Re:P-300 Waves

[Fire_Wraith]

It's about deliberate and demonstrable intent. Furthermore, it's about intent that can be proven in a court of law. In this case, the guy not only sent the image to someone known publicly to suffer seizures of this kind, he explicitly stated it was his intent to give the guy a seizure, and thereby do harm to him.

If I post up a flashing image on the FlashingObnoxiousGifs site, that's like my eating a peanut butter sandwich, or shooting my rifle at a firing range. It's not going to hurt anyone, unless they're being really really dumb.

If on the other hand, I deliberately try to serve cookies containing peanuts to you, knowing you're deathly allergic to peanuts, and tell someone that my intention is to do you harm, then yes, that's illegal and I should expect to be charged, much the same as if I'd laced them with a more generally toxic compound.
Likewise, if I turn around on the range and point the rifle at you, and pull the trigger, yelling 'eat lead motherf*cker', then uh, yeah, I'm kinda deliberately trying to harm you.

Re:P-300 Waves

[Anonymous Coward]

Why dismiss the others? In the future they probably won't.

Re:P-300 Waves

[globaljustin]

It's about deliberate and demonstrable intent. Furthermore, it's about intent that can be proven in a court of law. In this case, the guy not only sent the image to someone known publicly to suffer seizures of this kind, he explicitly stated it was his intent to give the guy a seizure, and thereby do harm to him.

that makes sense...

didn't know he stated that explicitly...some DA bucking for a promotion might latch onto that and make a big headline-grabbing case out of it...that explaination is rational

Reminds me of this bit

[tylersoze]

I'm reminded of the Louis CK bit about nut allergies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

somebody archived all that important shit

[Thud457]

sonofabitch, Geocities is still up

Re: I have a solution snowflake

[Anonymous Coward]

What a stupid comment. There is a clear difference between being conned and not.

WARNING!! EICHENWALD BAIT do not CLICK!

[Anonymous Coward]

sonofabitch, Geocities is still up

Watch Seizure-Inducing Event ( Score: +1,Bigly )

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifically, designed for Trump deplorables.

Bwahhahh !

"seizure inducing strobe"?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, so they can probably charge the person for malicious intent, harassment or some other crime. I am a person with epilepsy however and the idea of a "seizure inducing Tweet" strikes me as far fetched.

When they're trying to diagnose epilepsy, they hook you up to an EEG and deliberately attempt to trigger a seizure. With the lights, they spend several minutes exposing you to strobes of various brightness and frequency, with and without background lights, etc And that's with the light source directly in your field of vision. It's not easy to trigger a seizure, even for a professional with a special apparatus and a patient that's willing to follow instructions to maximize the chances. And even if you're photo-sensitive, it might not happen every single time.
I'm not saying a cell phone screen could not induce a seizure. In a dark room, with a flashing screen on maximum brightness, positioned 2" from your face, it would certainly be possible.
If this guy knows he has epilepsy and is photo sensitive, he'd have the brightness on his phone turned way down. He'd also be conditioned to turn away or shield his eyes if he saw something flashing. Hard to imagine that he pulled out his phone, looked at the screen for 2-3 seconds at a typical distance with normal background lighting and then immediately went into a seizure.

So

[Anonymous Coward]

When the usual idiots here on /. start posting things about sand-chimps, n*ggers and whatnot. . . . .

Remember the precedence thing here.

Those words aren't by accident, they're designed to get folks riled up. Ergo, intent.

Especially if folks complain about it which, in turn, would cause just that much more of it. Because: People.

As much as I wish folks would cease posting such nonsense, I think sending the FBI in would be a bit much.

I fail to see where a flashy gif that actually didn't cause any real harm is any different.

Harrison Bergeron

[Okian Warrior]

"At 12:04:03, every screen in the building strobed for eighteen seconds in a frequency that produced seizures in a susceptible segment of Sense/Net employees."

I think you've got the wrong novel.

In Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron", everyone was required to be "equal" in all ways. People who were smarter than average were required to wear headphones with distracting noises, people who were stronger or faster than average were required to wear extra weights or confining clothing, and so on.

We've just had a case where a couple of deaf people got 20,000 videos taken offline because the videos were not closed captioned for the deaf.

Now we've got a legal precedent which means that no one will be able to send a specially crafted image because it hurt a special-needs person.

Once this legal precedent is extended, can it be extended to other areas of harm? Would the same legal theory apply if:

1) The text content triggers someone into vividly reliving a past assault or rape?
2) The video of a war encounter triggers someone's PTSD?
3) The sudden audio content startles someone into spilling acetone or MEC or coffee in their lap?
4) Some religious person finds the imagery insulting to their religion?

I'm not against people with special needs, but this thing about "everyone must abide by the lowest denominator" is utter crap.

I once knew an epileptic who would get seizures by looking at a checkerboard floor pattern. I was throwing a party, had built some games in the basement, and she asked before coming what type of flooring was used in the games.

Must we to ban checkerboard patterns on the entire internet because of this one person?

Kurt Eichenwald is obviously a person with special needs, and that's fine, but he should deal with his special needs at his end, rather than forcing everyone to conform to his needs. His computer should be set to not flash animated gifs, to require a keypress to go to the next frame. He needs installed software that overlays a neutral diffuse background on online web pages and images.

The deaf people who wanted access to the online courses should also deal with their special needs at their end, by arranging to get captioning(*) for the courses they actually want to take, instead of making the university take down 20,000 course videos.

If this lawsuit has any merit, we're bound to see a serious erosion of the immense value we've built up in this internet thing.

Eventually we'll all be in the "Harrison Bergerac" world.

(*) And how they do that, by government assistance for the handicapped, or automated captioning, or perhaps by requiring the university do it in specific instances on request, is a separate issue. The point is that the changes happen at the special-needs endpoint, and not the entire rest of the internet.

Re:Harrison Bergeron

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've got the wrong novel.

I think you do, you're going about something, when this is totally different. It's like you picked up the Invisible Man by Ellison when we're talking The Invisible Man by H. G. Wells.

Once this legal precedent is extended, can it be extended to other areas of harm?

The legal precedent was already established, thousands of years ago, the only particular here is the mechanism is recognized, not to mention generally available, in a form it wasn't back in the days of Caesar. That is factual knowledge, and nothing new. Used to be we didn't know certain things could be toxic, but now if you serve them, you're guilty of murder.

Besides, this isn't a lawsuit. It's a prosecution. That's why the FBI arrested the alleged perpetrator.

You should get your facts right before running your mouth. Given that the problem is on your end, I suggest you take your own advice and remedy it.

Here, I'll help:

Friday, March 17, 2017
Maryland Man Arrested for Cyberstalking

A Maryland man was arrested today on a federal criminal complaint charging him with cyberstalking a Dallas, Texas resident, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney John Parker of the Northern District of Texas.

John Rayne Rivello, 29, of Salisbury, Maryland, was arrested in Maryland today on a criminal complaint filed in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was unsealed today following his initial appearance in the District of Maryland.

According to the allegations in the affidavit filed with the complaint, on Dec. 15, 2016, the victim, who is known to suffer from epilepsy, received a message via Twitter from Rivello. The tweet contained an animated strobe image embedded with the statement, “You deserve a seizure for your post.” Upon viewing the flashing strobe image the victim immediately suffered a seizure.

Additionally, according to the affidavit, evidence received pursuant to a search warrant showed Rivello’s Twitter account contained direct messages from Rivello’s account to other Twitter users concerning the victim. Among those direct messages included statements by Rivello, including “I hope this sends him into a seizure,” “Spammed this at [victim] let’s see if he dies,” and “I know he has epilepsy.” Additional evidence received pursuant to a search warrant showed Rivello’s iCloud account contained a screenshot of a Wikipedia page for the victim, which had been altered to show a fake obituary with the date of death listed as Dec. 16, 2016. Rivello’s iCloud account also contained screen shots from epilepsy.com with a list of commonly reported epilepsy seizure triggers and from dallasobserver.com discussing the victim’s report to the Dallas Police Department and his attempt to identify the Twitter user.

The charges contained in a criminal complaint are merely accusations, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The FBI and the Dallas Police Department investigated the case. The Maryland State Police and Ocean City Police Department assisted during the arrest. Assistant U.S. Attorney C.S. Heath of the Northern District of Texas and Aaron Cooper of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section are prosecuting the case.

Now that you understand the situation better, I expect you to revise your opinion and demonstrate a more informed and rational response.

Re:Harrison Bergeron

[hackwrench]

No, someone didn't just get prosecuted just because he sent a tweet to a special needs person. He sent a tweet with the intent to cause him to have a seizure, a tweet that embedded the image, and Twitter being a platform where tweets "just appear" when you go to your Twitter page.

Re:Harrison Bergeron

[basecastula]

The book you are talking about is The Sirens of Titan.

Re:Harrison Bergeron

[rtb61]

So that would be twitters fault for not coding in gif stoppers and user set filters. The attack is too much of a non-attack to be reasonable. The prosecution is unreasonable and inevitably will bring it to public consciousness and a whole string of attacks will result, especially from child, all because one fuss pot got their knickers in a knot and the FBI failed to apply common sense. So all the resulting attacks brought about by this prosecutions, can they in turn prosecute the original complainant for triggering subsequent attacks. In light of the first prosecution, the second one would seem fair and another for Twitter for not adding in user configurable blocks and filters.

Re:Harrison Bergeron

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that you understand the situation better, I expect you to revise your opinion and demonstrate a more informed and rational response.

That's a profoundly naive expectation. Get used to disappointment.

Re: Harrison Bergeron

[Anonymous Coward]

Disappointed? Why? Either way I win, as Okian Warrior validates the disdain by failing to correct their error, or they do what I wanted and improve their own conduct.

I don't play to lose.

Re:Harrison Bergeron

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comparison is not a very good one. What if someone is affected by something? Not the same as a deliberate attack.

Re:Harrison Bergeron

[squiggleslash]

This is not a lawsuit, it's a criminal investigation. It's a criminal investigation because law enforcement believes that the perpetrator performed their act with the intention of causing a seizure to a specific victim.

What you're arguing is the equivalent of someone defending a violent felon beating a baby to death with a baseball bat by arguing somehow that this impedes your right to use baseball bats for anything at all, and that really it's the baby's fault for being weaker than everyone else.

No, you can't do that. You cannot perform an act knowing it'll cause serious physical harm to someone specific (except in self defense) no matter what technology you choose to use, and justifying it because, hey, the technology allows it, and evolution amirite, is repugnant.

Re:Harrison Bergeron

[rochrist]

Came here just to watch the usual suspects rush to defend the attacker. Was not disappointed. /. is nothing if not predictable.

Re:Harrison Bergeron

[Pseudonym]

So that would be twitters fault for not coding in gif stoppers and user set filters.

Not content with blaming platforms for failing to prevent piracy, we're now going to blame them for failing to prevent stalking?

Re:Harrison Bergeron

[rtb61]

The controls are not about prevent stalking. You seem to fail to grasp the concept, those control make stalking invisible to the end user, take all the reward from the stalker and simply end the problem. There should be a range of controls on all social media platforms, that allow the end user to filter and moderate their own feed. Most games have an ignore setting for chat, which is really quite useful, crazy politics and religion and just set them to ignore, they are still there, probably, maybe, but who cares. So for those that need it a gif filter as well as an ignore filter and if appropriate and with the approval of the applicable authorities and ignore and forward to the authorities setting (they can process the number of repeat offences and their content to ascertain whether a legal response is required, after validating the accuracy and origins of the content). Further information in this case indicates the penalty was for talking and harassment, rather than a single gif. Social media sites simply need to add more tools to allow the end user to have better control over what content is 'delivered' to them.

Slippery slope

[mi]

If on the other hand, I deliberately try to serve cookies containing peanuts to you, knowing you're deathly allergic to peanuts

Peanut allergy is real. So, apparently, is the effect of strobing images on epileptics. But it is still worrying...

Recall, that "trigger warnings" are already "a thing". What if my political opinion "triggers" somebody — causing them pain and/or other suffering? For now, such snowflakes are content to escape the brutal realities of life in "safe spaces". Unfortunately, those prolifereate and are already used to silence certain opinions.

True, FBI is not yet used to go after the "triggering" folks, but that can't be far off. When the current crop of students enters real life and their careers place (some of) them into actual decision-making positions, Law Enforcement will equate such triggering with assault — and doctors, currently in pre-med at those same campuses, will certify in court that the "victims'" "pain" is real...

Oh, and did you know, movement is seriously afoot to make "hate speech" a crime too?

tell someone that my intention is to do you harm

Yep. Right here... I do consider certain Illiberals to be beyond repair and do wish to make them uncomfortable — my very /. signatures are designed to mock something they hold dear. Intentionally.

Whatever this intent says about my own character flaws, it is still protected by the First Amendment today. But we are already sliding down the slippery slope... The First Amendment may be protecting a nebulous "right" to sell pornography (except for the child sort, for some reason), as well as to (quietly!) video-tape police. But, if the current trends aren't reversed, it will — in a generation — become illegal to say certain things because of the "painful reaction" such speech might cause...

Re: Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Peanut allergy is real. So, apparently, is the effect of strobing images on epileptics. But it is still worrying...

All sorts of things are worry-inducing. That is a good thing. You should worry. But if you let yourself fall into the trap of inaction, you cause more harm. That is the way the world works.

Unfair? Perhaps, but as I am not aware of my creation of it, I feel no guilt. Only responsibility.

Whatever this intent says about my own character flaws, it is still protected by the First Amendment today. But we are already sliding down the slippery slope...

±

The existence of the First Amendment should tell you something. Namely for all your self-important hand-wringing, the situation already existed long before you sprung forth upon the world.

This may hurt your feelings, your navel-gazing indicates that you are overly sensitive to the idea that what you are thinking isn't so meaningful, that you want to deplore a long-distance existing tension as if it was a sudden crisis, and force the rest of us to go along with your hysteria.

But there is no such trend, no coming generation that is coming forth, well, at least no new one, it is instead the same burden that we have walked under for the thousands of years of speech. As I said, I consider that you overmuch value yourself, so think this a new and oncoming dread.

The fact is, your words have always had the potential for consequence, if they did not, you would hardly speak them, the same as you would not take action without a result. But like all human beings, sometimes your anticipation can be faulty, and thus you can bear the price of something you did not desire to occur.

I suggest you try looking less to the future, and more to the past, so that your understanding can be improved. Of course, it is possible that I am misapprehending you, but then perhaps you needed to consider your words more carefully and make more of an effort to portray your awareness better. I can make the expression that it may be possible I may be wrong about your sentiments, but you can also realize that you can make such errors as to completeness.

Re: Slippery slope

[mi]

I suggest you try looking less to the future, and more to the past

Handing out copies of the Constitution on campus was disallowed recently by the university officials:

“This isn’t really the ’60s anymore ... people can’t really protest like that anymore.”

See? Ostensibly, the Bill of Rights in general and the First Amendment in particular are still the Law of the Land. But in reality they no longer work as they used to. Our republic is barely 200 years old. Things have already changed a lot since its inception, and continue changing. Not all of the change is good...

Re: Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

See? Ostensibly, the Bill of Rights in general and the First Amendment in particular are still the Law of the Land. But in reality they no longer work as they used to. Our republic is barely 200 years old. Things have already changed a lot since its inception, and continue changing. Not all of the change is good...

All I see is another example of your self-indulgent naivitete, when all you have is a case of the more things that (allegedly) change, the more they stay the same.

Nevermindâ that you can find such "controversies" played out in malls, airports and universities across the country for decades, why not a bit of a look into the history of censorship of abolitionist literature ( and even deb

Re: Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, misclicked, sorry.

See? Ostensibly, the Bill of Rights in general and the First
Amendment in particular are still the Law of the Land. But in reality they o longer work as they used to. Our republic is barely 200 years old. Things have already changed a lot since its inception, and continue changing. Not all of the change is good...

All I see is another example of your self-indulgent naivitete, when all you have is a case of the more things that (allegedly) change, the more they stay the same.

Nevermind that you can find such "controversies" played out in malls, airports and universities across the country for decades, why not a bit of a look into the history of censorship of abolitionist literature (even debate in Congress was stifled), the incarceration of Eugene Debs, the Hollywood Blacklist, and the Pentagon Papers.

Not going to coddle you, you sound like a child who has seen some wonder without realizing race the fullness of the tale.

Try getting some grounding, so you sound less likeâ Chicken Little.

Re:Slippery slope

[serviscope_minor]

Peanut allergy is real. So, apparently, is the effect of strobing images on epileptics. But it is still worrying...

No it really isn't. Attempt to cause actual harm as always been illegal. Doing it by an unusual mechanism has never been an excuse. Likewise doing crimes over the internet does not make them less as crimes.

Recall, that "trigger warnings" are already "a thing".

Yes? I don't understand the mindset that considers them to be a bad thing. They're a basic form of politeness saying essentially "the following will contain some things that some people really don't want to see", then letting whoever doesn't want to see it step away so they don't have to see it.

Then the people who want to talk about it can, and the people who don't want to can leave and not do so.

True, FBI is not yet used to go after the "triggering" folks, but that can't be far off.

Back in the 90s, Harry Enfield has a regular slot on his sketch show about you (and a tendency we all have, but most are self aware enough to not splatter it out there for the world to see). The sketch featured a chap known as "Angry Frank", was always set in his local pub and he'd have these conversations where he'd invent increasingly unlikely hypothetical scenarios and then get really REALLY angry about them.

Oi FBI! Noooo!

my very /. signatures are designed to mock something they hold dear.

Trust me, my man, we don't hold you dear.

Gonna be harder to prove in the future

[Solandri]

Because the jerks/trolls who'd do stuff like this will become more sophisticated. Instead of attaching a GIF, they'll use an embedded link which auto-loads the image from a server. And the server will only send the "bad" image the first time, substituting an innocuous image for subsequent viewings.

Here's to hoping this leads to all email clients gaining an option to block automatic loading of animated GIFs and/or embedded image links.

Filter for seizure inducing images?

[dlleigh]

It should be straightforward to write a filter to detect animated images with luminance variations of the right amplitude and frequency to cause seizures in susceptible individuals. These individuals could then enable the filter and be spared from this type of attack.

I wonder why the various browser and email application vendors have not implemented such, for ADA purposes.

Re:Filter for seizure inducing images?

[aevan]

Just disable flashing gifs, period. Nothing of value is lost, just 'reaction gifs' for the most part. Already are extensions out there like AniDisable to do that.

Re:Embedding

[hackwrench]

You can embed pictures in tweets now.

Re:Embedding

[Zero__Kelvin]

Pictures don't strobe either. I'm guessing you can post animations. I don't care enough to log into the twitter account I created a couple years ago, and have yet to use, to try it.

They'd have to prove that it was intentional

[Anonymous Coward]

Even in child porn cases, the FBI can't charge a person without proving the content was downloaded on purpose. Uploads wouldn't be any different. As long as they have a good lawyer and a quiet mouth, they're good.

Re:They'd have to prove that it was intentional

[Dputiger]

Right. That's not going to be hard. He's being charged with cyberstalking, but just for factual reference, this is from the DOJ:

"Evidence received pursuant to a search warrant showed Rivello’s Twitter account contained direct messages from Rivello’s account to other Twitter users concerning the victim. Among those direct messages included statements by Rivello, including “I hope this sends him into a seizure,” “Spammed this at [victim] let’s see if he dies,” and “I know he has epilepsy.” Additional evidence received pursuant to a search warrant showed Rivello’s iCloud account contained a screenshot of a Wikipedia page for the victim, which had been altered to show a fake obituary with the date of death listed as Dec. 16, 2016. Rivello’s iCloud account also contained screen shots from epilepsy.com with a list of commonly reported epilepsy seizure triggers and from dallasobserver.com discussing the victim’s report to the Dallas Police Department and his attempt to identify the Twitter user."

So yeah. When you've got someone stating "I hope this gives him a seizure," "Let's see if he dies," altering his Wikipedia page to show a death date and obit, and looking up information on the kinds of seizures that cause death, you haven't exactly established a strong defense for how this should be treated anything less than extremely seriously. This isn't a prank. It was a deliberate attempt to injure or kill someone.

Do you know how many epileptics die as a result of seizures every year in the US alone? Roughly 50,000. Provoking a seizure in an epileptic is not a fucking joke.

So if we Google this, does that count under the st

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm referring to a Slashdot story that came out not that long ago.

No, sorry, shouldn't be a crime.

[thedarb]

Intent or not, it should not be a crime to send such a graphic. Shouldn't matter if the recipient is an epileptic. It's just a graphic. There was no physical assault.

Maybe we should litter the internet with such images to keep the images considered part of everyday life. Just like my kid should be able to take peanut butter sandwiches to school.

For those with such issues... If it hurts if you touch it, then don't touch it. If the internet can harm you, don't use it. If peanut butter can kill you, stay out of places that will have it. Don't see me rushing to be a bee keeper with my bee allergy.

Re:No, sorry, shouldn't be a crime.

[serviscope_minor]

There was no physical assault.

The FBI disagrees with you as do most people here it seems. It remains to be seen whether the judge disagrees with you, but I very much suspect he or she will.

Attempt to cause harm is and always has been illegal. "but it's on the internet" is not a factor.

It's not covered by free speech any more than offering someone 50 bucks to beat the guy up is free speech.

Re:No, sorry, shouldn't be a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh-hoho. Butthurt asshole detected. Newsflash: NO, it's not just graphics. It's a neurological attack. Just because it affects the body on the inside rather than on the outside, doesn't mean it's not a physical attack.

Further, you not having a condition does not equal you having the right to DOS:ing people how have. People with epilepsy have just as much right as you to be on the Internet.

Congratulations to being the biggest cumgargling douche I've seen in years.

Okay...

[Okian Warrior]

Disappointed? Why? Either way I win, as Okian Warrior validates the disdain by failing to correct their error, or they do what I wanted and improve their own conduct.

I don't play to lose.

You always win.

You know that, right?

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, your posts reek of an inferiority complex so its unsurprising you would say that.

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, shame on a slashdot tryhard

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Disappointed? Why? Either way I win, as Okian Warrior validates the disdain by failing to correct their error, or they do what I wanted and improve their own conduct.

I don't play to lose.

You always win.

You know that, right?

Did you know you've already opened your mouth?

Too late to remain in doubt.

Re:Embedding

[Mashiki]

You can post animations, but they don't automatically play unless you have it enabled. It's the same for videos if you embed them.

After Trump won the election...

[Powercntrl]

...I can honestly say I'm no longer surprised by stupid shit like this. All those YouTubers with "RIP headphone users" videos better watch out, because if some people don't know how to turn their fucking brightness down so their computer/phone doesn't give them a seizure, claims of hearing damage from excessive volume can't be far off.

I have no love whatsoever for Twitter trolls (and the thought of one being arrested by the FBI almost seems like karma), but the FBI should've told this fuckwit to turn his image autoloading off. It's kinda up there with "don't run random EXE files from porn sites", "don't click on links in spam", and "don't give your credit card/bank account info to Nigerian royalty."

Re:After Trump won the election...

[serviscope_minor]

Sure, the guy should switch it off for his own protection.

However, if someone takes a swing at you, you are under no obligation to get out of the way or even attempt to do so. Failing to do so doesn't somehow make punching you in the face "not assault".

"But your honour the victim didn't even attempt to duck"

"Really? Case dismissed!"

Re:After Trump won the election...

[moeinvt]

Actually, I think that will be a question for the jury. Consider this one.

There was a vehicular homicide case in NJ where a guy was driving way over the speed limit and had a crash which ended up killing his passenger. The fact that the passenger wasn't wearing a seatbelt at the time was ruled admissible as evidence for the defense. The jury could thus consider whether it was reckless driving that caused the death or if it was the victim's failure to buckle their seatbelt

Forgot how it turned out, but the penalty for reckless driving causing injury would be way less than vehicular homicide. IANAL, but the penalty for trolling a person with epilepsy by sending a tweet saying "Look at this, I hope you have a seizure!" would be much less severe than for sending something that actually DID cause a seizure.

If the NJ case is any kind of precedent, the jury should at least be allowed to consider the guy's failure to take precautions to guard against his phone causing a seizure. Yes, he should have disabled animation. He also should have turned down the brightness and used the phone only in good ambient light. We'll see.

Re:After Trump won the election...

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but the penalty for trolling a person with epilepsy by sending a tweet saying "Look at this, I hope you have a seizure!" would be much less severe than for sending something that actually DID cause a seizure.

The FBI press release asserts that a seizure actually occurred. -PCP

Re:Embedding

[allo]

There are types of media, which play automatically. Others do not.
I think the automatic ones are loops, the others are videos.

Re:I have a solution snowflake

[rochrist]

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Re:Embedding

[Anonymous Coward]

how hard are you trying to appear out of the loop my man? Twitter (and it's ability to embed moving images) goes back years now.

Re: Embedding

[Anonymous Coward]

Pictures are not moving images. That was the point that WHOOOSHed by you.