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

Post by stuaxo » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 1:12 PM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #76

bastawhiz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

Post by stuaxo » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 1:22 PM UTC

traviscj wrote: post #88

Andrenid wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, makes sense. Bookmark == pointer to bytes, Screenshot == bytes. If the bytes could save someone's life (or N doctor visits, or even 5 saved minutes), quite worthwhile to keep a copy. Same principal as pinboard.in's archiving, except comes stock on nearly every phone.

Post by ConfuciusSay02 » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #78

partiallypro wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 some…

Post by pbhjpbhj » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #31

imglorp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> “Spammed this at [victim] let’s see if he dies,” Seizures can kill and this is widely known, so widely that we got instruction in high school on how to deal with a seizure victim to make sure they don't die. Surely someone sending a seizure inducing picture to someone they know is prone to seizures is well aware of the risk they are taking, they are definitely not doing it to give them a monitor induced suntan. See…

Post by deanishe » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 2:40 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #119

koverstreet wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, don't be dragging the discussion down like this. If you've got something to say about mens rea, then say it.

The law can deal with "what some judge/jury conjectures that the intent might be", but it cannot deal with intent. But this weaker statement sounds like it might be implemented in software, too.