Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How police found Twitter user accused of sending seizure-triggering GIF

documentcloud.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 148 posts

Re: How police found Twitter user accused of sending seizure-triggering GIF

#71

Post by ChoGGi »

tyingq wrote: post #5

Desktop browsers allow you to disable auto-playing animated images. I'm surprised mobile browsers don't seem to have this. If I suffered from this, I'd want some sort of reasonable protection from asshats.

I use this bit of CSS to make images/videos grayscale till I hover over them:

  iframe,video,img
  {filter:grayscale(1)!important;}

  iframe:hover,video:hover,img:hover
  {filter:none!important;}
Ignore the hover part and it seems like it'd work fine for mobile (Firefox with an extension), though it does seem like you'd need to be holding your phone/tablet pretty close to have a seizure either way?

Re: How police found Twitter user accused of sending seizure-triggering GIF

#72

Post by bastawhiz »

cottsak wrote: post #36
rjeli wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, did not realize Apple is so gung-ho about sharing iCloud data with LE. I love the Apple ecosystem but when I have to start fracturing out my services it's going to suck. edit: should have read the post. Thought "ask" meant they handed it over willingly. Apple was served a search warrant, AT&T was not.

The FBI had a warrant

Yeah, if you try to _literally kill someone over the internet_ and you think any lawful company is going to fight a warrant for your data, you've got another thing coming.

Re: How police found Twitter user accused of sending seizure-triggering GIF

#73

Post by Shank »

rjeli wrote: post #30
vmarsy wrote: post #15

From an article related to the case [1]: > charged with criminal cyberstalking with the intent to kill or cause bodily harm and faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison if convicted, What is even more sad: > More than 40 Twitter users sent similar strobes to Mr. Eichenwald after they realized they could trigger seizures, he tweeted Friday. The agent went through these steps to identify the suspect: - Asked Twit…

Wow, did not realize Apple is so gung-ho about sharing iCloud data with LE. I love the Apple ecosystem but when I have to start fracturing out my services it's going to suck. edit: should have read the post. Thought "ask" meant they handed it over willingly. Apple was served a search warrant, AT&T was not.

The LE guidelines are available here, if you're curious as to what they offer: http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guideline...

Re: How police found Twitter user accused of sending seizure-triggering GIF

#74

Post by bigiain »

tyingq wrote: post #40
wavefunction wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The suspect specifically targeted the target because he said so in messages to some of his "fellow travelers" in whatever sorts of internet political circles he runs in.[0] I would urge you to do some reading on these sorts of events. Following the facts of the case can do wonders for your own arguments. [0] http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/03/17/fbi-arrests-...

Yes, he did say things like ""I hope this sends him into a seizure" and "let's see if he dies." You can imagine, though, similar situations where that's puffery. There's also a pretty loose correlation between a seizure and death. Edit: Should clarify that it's still atrocious, and seems criminal. Not convinced though, that it's clearly attempted murder. The charge is interesting in that the penalty is 10 years max,…

Nothing you say will be considered "puffery" by the prosecution in a court. Do not _ever_ pretend anything you say in bluster or anger can not be used against you in court...

Also, they're not charging him with attempted murder here. They're charging him with "Cyber Stalking, in violation of U.S.C. s2261A(2)(a) and s2261A(2)(A) and (B)"

There's no doubt at all, that if the evidence as listed is true, he's in clear violation of this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A (Something which I suspect a lot of GamerGate/4Chan/shitposters/self-identified-edgelords should think carefully about... I bet a lot of them have no better opsec than this guy...)

Re: How police found Twitter user accused of sending seizure-triggering GIF

#75

Post by partiallypro »

jacquesm wrote: post #35

This is as close to a real life 'snowcrash' as you could get and whoever did this (and the copycats) should be thrown the book at. 50K people die in the USA alone each year due to seizures, this is really no joking matter.

The problem is that it's easy to say someone gave you a seizure, since -most- are not fatal, even if they didn't have a seizure. There's not much evidence against or supporting that you had a seizure from a gif. This really opens the door for abuse on both ends. So, I am skeptical of "throw the book at them" as a solution, because it would be so easy to fake and ruin someone. The solution should be with browser makers and social media companies to not have autoplay and be more cautious for photosensitive people. I mean, what if you accidentally give someone a seizure? Should you be held liable? I say this being a skeptic of this particular person's story, given his history.

Re: How police found Twitter user accused of sending seizure-triggering GIF

#76

Post by rtpg »

bastawhiz wrote: post #72
cottsak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FBI had a warrant

Yeah, if you try to _literally kill someone over the internet_ and you think any lawful company is going to fight a warrant for your data, you've got another thing coming.

It feels like people still minimize pretty awful actions when they happen over the internet.

Imagine someone running up to someone with epilepsy in public and showing them strobes? What sort of deranged person does that?

Imagine someone sending death threats through snail mail over and over. Of course that's horrific! But brigaders doing it through twitter is kinda fine because "hey, you're on twitter, stupid stuff happens".

So much harassement is extremely cruel but we (myself included) tend to discount it when it happens over social media.

Re: How police found Twitter user accused of sending seizure-triggering GIF

#77

Post by rtpg »

partiallypro wrote: post #75
jacquesm wrote: post #35

This is as close to a real life 'snowcrash' as you could get and whoever did this (and the copycats) should be thrown the book at. 50K people die in the USA alone each year due to seizures, this is really no joking matter.

The problem is that it's easy to say someone gave you a seizure, since -most- are not fatal, even if they didn't have a seizure. There's not much evidence against or supporting that you had a seizure from a gif. This really opens the door for abuse on both ends. So, I am skeptical of "throw the book at them" as a solution, because it would be so easy to fake and ruin someone. The solution should be with browser maker…

So I'm not responsible for throwing a rock at your car because the windshield stopped it and didn't crack?

There's documented evidence of intent here. The guy was trying to give their victim a seizure. There's nothing accidental here.

Of course if someone accidentally gave someone else a seizure, there should be different standards applied. Of course!

Also, yes, we need to make sure photosensitive people can browse more safely (for the same reason we put airbags in cars).

The book you throw at them isn't "giving someone a seizure", it's "attempting to harm someone intentionally with super malicious intent".

Re: How police found Twitter user accused of sending seizure-triggering GIF

#78

Post by jdietrich »

partiallypro wrote: post #75
jacquesm wrote: post #35

This is as close to a real life 'snowcrash' as you could get and whoever did this (and the copycats) should be thrown the book at. 50K people die in the USA alone each year due to seizures, this is really no joking matter.

The problem is that it's easy to say someone gave you a seizure, since -most- are not fatal, even if they didn't have a seizure. There's not much evidence against or supporting that you had a seizure from a gif. This really opens the door for abuse on both ends. So, I am skeptical of "throw the book at them" as a solution, because it would be so easy to fake and ruin someone. The solution should be with browser maker…

In this case, there is clear mens rea and actus rea. The accused openly stated that he intended to cause a seizure with the hope of causing actual bodily harm. He knowingly used a GIF as a weapon.

That's vastly different from, say, a heavy metal band inadvertently causing a seizure with their stage lights, or an animator inadvertently drawing a sequence that triggers photosensitive epilepsy.

By analogy, consider someone who deliberately drives their car at a bus stop and later brags on social media about trying to mow down pedestrians, versus someone who slips on black ice and spins out of control.

I am fundamentally opposed to "throwing the book" at anyone - I'd much prefer a programme of evidence-based rehabilitation.

Re: How police found Twitter user accused of sending seizure-triggering GIF

#79

Post by bigiain »

imglorp wrote: post #24
robk wrote: post #2

That seems like a very reasonable process. Nothing unusual anyways.

The only part I take exception to is the hyperbolic kill portion of, "intent to kill, injure, harass..." of the complaint. Seizures are unpleasant, inconvenient, and you might get injured on the way to the ground but they are rarely fatal, and if the victim was known to be at risk of such, he would be in an ICU somewhere. Did the perpetrator intend to kill? That might be hard to prove.

That's not hyperbole, it's just the wording directly out of the law they're charging him under:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

And in full context it says:

… engages in conduct that—

…

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—

__(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A); or

__(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

So they're not trying to prove "intent to kill". They only need to prove "intent to intimidate anther person" using an "electronic communication system of interstate commerce" that either for (A) "places that person in reasonable fear of … serious bodily injury", or for (B) "would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress".

Seems to me they've laid out all the evidence needed to show that - the only thing a court needs to decide is if that evidence is all true and admissible.

I wouldn't want to be the defendant here.

Re: How police found Twitter user accused of sending seizure-triggering GIF

#80

Post by Andrenid »

hatsunearu wrote: post #29

Page 11-12, Weird how he takes screenshots of random shit like his research on how to trigger epilepsy. Who researches shit and takes screenshots?

My SO is a specialist nurse. She takes screenshots of everything under the sun. She finds it easier to quickly look up screenshots than load a bookmark or even find her own research notes. When I asked about it, she said all the other nurses and doctors do it too and that's where she picked it up.
Post reply on HN