Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the FBI-is-looking-at-your-tweets dept.

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.

6 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. No. by mcmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No. by ausekilis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:AFK != IRL by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:AFK != IRL by borcharc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:P-300 Waves by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.