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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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: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: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.