So... Tweeting now is a form of assaulting ?
Yes. The victim had epilepsy, and the tweet was something like "You deserve a seizure!" accompanied by a rapidly flashing animated GIF.
DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
81–90 of 90 posts
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#82What amazes me is somewhere along the process someone with power didn't notice and think "Hey you know this all seems like a bit much considering what we're looking at here..."
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
To intimidate others who might speak up in support of those who speak against injustices committed by federal employees.
To intimidate Ken White? I have to imagine there are easier targets to intimidate than a former USDA. Then again, I'm confused why they sent these to begin with.
> To intimidate Ken White?
Also, if I were trying to intimidate people who read a lot of Ken White's opinions, I wouldn't try to do it by filing questionable legal things about Ken White, thereby forcing him (as you say, a former USDA with a wide network) to enter into legal proceedings with me and inviting him to discuss my actions to his audience.
To a first approximation, that seems like it has a high likelihood of backfiring.
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#84I used to tell my son that there will always be work for computer security specialists and that he should go for that. This makes me wonder about my advice.
I assume that if you're freelance you're at more risk of finding yourself on the receiving end of a CFAA violation. What I wonder is that if security researchers who work for domestic companies face the same degree of scrutiny that these freelance researchers do. I guess that if you work for a company you're probably not looking at anyone's website that's not explicitly paying you/your company and under some contract…
Working for Intel didn't stop Intel getting a conviction against Randal Schwartz (which was eventually quashed, but he ended up being " felon" for over 10 years...)
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#85Why is Ted Stevens a fool for saying the Internet is a series of tubes, but so many otherwise level-headed are fine pretending networks are houses?
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doxxing? Hardly. Looking at the Twitter thread, he did far less than a lazy casual fan of a TV star would do on an average Google/Facebook search. > Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory. Though your summary was sensationalised by the addition of the term doxxing (usually negative connotations there), whether you meant it to be or not. It is all about how the spin is put on it. An innocuous si…
First definition of "dox" that came up for me on google: > search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent. Sounds appropriate, doesn't it? If you still disagree, here's a thought experiment: If someone were searching and posting that info about you, or anyone else reading this very thread, wouldn't we call that doxxing?
Years ago, I was contacted by a person who was very upset I "published" his name in connection with a domain name.
It was information I obtained from "whois".
I also wonder how many people are unaware that many counties in the US make property records available over the Internet. It is, after all, public information.
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#87Why is Ted Stevens a fool for saying the Internet is a series of tubes, but so many otherwise level-headed are fine pretending networks are houses?
It's a metaphor.
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#88What amazes me is somewhere along the process someone with power didn't notice and think "Hey you know this all seems like a bit much considering what we're looking at here..."
Never underestimate the power given when people take the attitude that something they are looking at is "not my problem".
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not[e] true that crime rates are at historic lows, particularly violent crime which is over double the 1960 rate: Which ignores the context of the data that while still double the 1960 rate, it is also half the peak 1991 rate , and has generally been decreasing since then. The murder rate is similar to the early 1960's, after it's peak in the 70s/80s. I have nothing to disagree with your comment on Chicago, which so…
I wasn't ignoring the parent context, which was that crime is at historic lows which is not true.
I found this neat crime vs population density study, but as with most things, you answer one question and end up with more:
https://blog.nycdatascience.com/student-works/pressure-cooke...