FBI Arrests Man For Allegedly Sending Journalist Seizure-Causing GIF
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
Going back to reality: Someone severely allergic to peanuts is killed with peanuts in their food by a mistake: accident. Someone severely allergic to peanuts is killed with peanuts in their food because someone added them on purpose with knowledge of the condition? Murder.
Luckily, seizures don't always result in death.
Now to confound the issue here? The internet is already filled with blinking gifs, so this case is much more complicated.
The mechanics of how they tried to do that will be of secondary importance, except to the extent that the law will likely care that whatever mechanism was used did in fact stand a good chance of causing a seizure.
More accurately, mental state (of which intent is but one aspect) is a substantial part of the definition of most crimes.
Executable semantics are more scalable, being a core innovation that allowed the Internet to flourish - eg a router doesn't care about the intent of a packet, but only its destination address. (ISPs are doing their best to undermine the e2e principle, attempting to infer intent to extract more value than can be gotten from commodity service, but I digress).
If we want to follow the implications of executable semantics, then an epileptic should have software which prevents harmful signals from being shown on their screen. This seems onerous, except for the ultimate alternative being a single world jurisdiction to enable post-facto prosecution of cross-border "intent", and destruction of Internet anonymity to effect this.
A signal filter also seems to be a more practical device than say a content filter to block scams for a cognitively-impaired older person, which is the accepted state of affairs even for intranational snail mail (eg Publishers' Clearinghouse).
(note: I've said nothing condoning the actual act of attempting to give a person a seizure, but only how we should analyze the systems that have given rise to this capability. The simplistic reaction of focusing blame on the (essentially stochastic) perpetrator is helping to push us down the path of unsustainable centralization)
As a result, we don't have to reach far to see how inducing a seizure over the Internet could result in criminal liability. It isn't a stretch. The laws we had 40 years ago adequately capture the event.
We can argue about it or not, but normatively I know that I would indeed like some sort of purely-executable-semantics environment, as the Internet was originally perceived as. Twitster's walled garden likely isn't a workable place to push for this for (being a mass-marketed proprietary service that merely delivers over the Internet). But as I don't see a boundary for where the legal system will ever stop attempting to apply its ambient authority, it is worthwhile to point out that there are alternative philosophies at every one of these occurrences.
Also important in this case is that the seizure gif in question was personalized with the message “You deserve a seizure for your postings.” That make the case similar to force feeding peanuts to a guy you know have a severe peanut allergy.
[edit] Found this based on suggestion below. Obviously, don't click if you're seizure-prone: http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb217/powercrazy13/you-de...
I guess I'm not epileptic. It's pretty uncomfortable to look at for a long stretch though. Anyone know what happens if a non-epileptic stares at an image like this, say, for an hour?
Only a small part of the epileptic people is sensible to the flashing light. Some are affected by strong strip patterns instead. Most are totally not affected by this, and their seizures can be triggered by other means.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosensitive_epilepsy
> Photosensitive epilepsy (PSE) is a form of epilepsy in which seizures are triggered by visual stimuli that form patterns in time or space, such as flashing lights, bold, regular patterns, or regular moving patterns.
From http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/triggers-seizures/photosensiti...
> For about 3 percent of people with epilepsy, exposure to flashing lights at certain intensities or to certain visual patterns can trigger seizures. This condition is known as photosensitive epilepsy.
GIFs - adblock them? as far as detection goes - you could detect vast color shifts at high frequencies.
They absolutely do not.
If a person is sensitive/allergy to something why shouldn't it be that person's responsibility to avoid coming into contact with it? Should all gifs that MAY cause seizures be outlawed on the internet now? Why should it be the rest of the internet's responsibility not to have gifs that may cause seizures?
What if I recommend an anime that may cause seizures, should I be arrested for recommending something?
I'm not really buying this whole trend in this thread of arguing what amounts to, "I should be able to fire my gun into a crowd, it's my right, they should be wearing Kevlar."
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
If one's allergic they should avoid allergens. If one's known to be prone to seizures, they'd better avoid the cause. This doesn't mean its their fault, neither it implies that others are completely free to exploit this weakness. Yet, it still makes sense to take precautions.
My understanding of the GP statement is taking it at its literal value. I.e. that if it's known that some animations one may encounter at random may be severely harmful to their health, it is possibly smart (a "maybe"-grade suggestion) to take some precaution by disabling animations. Which may be or may be not a good idea - depending on what value non-seizure-triggering animations have.
No other things are implied by this (or at least I fail to see it), and I'm sure it doesn't imply that receiver should've somehow foreseen that they would be attacked that way.
That. Is. A. Problem.
I'm saying "if you're aware (and now that person is) that you have this illness it may be smart to take disable animations".
Also I don't know what app he is using but they don't autoplay for me… So it seems… avoidable.
They are both mental triggers. You literally "trigger" a seizure. I know a person who any mention of rape brings her to attempt self harm. It's genuinely not that different.
I like to think that if you had a good point, you'd be making it, and that it wouldn't involve a really desperate attempt to equivocate between "trigger words" and photosensitive epilepsy.
What if I post something that's just really offensive? I feel like we've entered a time where people would gladly see the First Amendment trodden over if it means seeing "justice" doled out to nasty people.
Your argument rests on something very different.
And your hypothetical situation isn't hypothetical – people who cyberbully others into committing suicide are certainly charged for their crimes.
Even if the person here hadn't known that Eichenwald had epilepsy, they could still be charged, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull. So the fact that they did know and intentionally caused an attack is certainly punishable.
What if someone made you a sandwich and didn't tell you there were peanuts in it with the intent of causing a reaction? Eating the sandwich could have been avoided, but you wouldn't know that until you took a bite.
Tweeting gifs? Fine. Tweeting gifs at someone with the intent to cause harm? Illegal
sorry, what? i don't think assault is protected by the first amendment. at the risk of sounding naive i have to ask why Manson wasn't protected under the first amendment?
Is assault possible with only words and images? If it entices someone to commit acts of violence, yes. If it is the words themselves that cause injury, the reader has the option to not engage in risky behavior.
break it down this way: some guy literally tried to give another guy a seizure. are the means by which he tried to induce the seizure even relevant? would anyone really suggest taking action with this intent should not be punishable?
a lot of people want to say "oh but free speech...?"-- as if to imply you're free to kill someone as long as you only use words to do it.
How do we know Eichenwald actually had a seizure? Why wouldn't he take precautions if he knew using a computer could cause a seizure? He appears to have motive to lie, an opportunity to get away with it, and a proven desire to be the "hero" in his own reporting. He is his own victim.
> It's not reasonable to introduce additional first amendment restrictions or award damages in response to targeted prank tweets by internet trolls.
the medium is irrelevant. the first amendment does not cover all forms of expression and speech. period, man.
> Why wouldn't he take precautions if he knew using a computer could cause a seizure?
it's like saying, why cross the street if you know you can get hit by a car? obviously there is a statistical difference, but that would suggest a slippery slope. other posters in this thread have given less extreme examples of this spectrum.
you have to look at it from the perspective of intent.
honest question: if yesterday i'd asked you "some guy maliciously and willfully gave another guy a seizure, should he be punished?". would you respond, "depends, how'd he do it?"
I agree violence should be met with appropriate justice.
Circumstances and context are rarely as cut and dried as your honest question. For example, there are some people alive that I'd rather they not be. Without context only a psychopath would think that. But if I add "9/11 victim" as context? Then you not only get it, you're on board.
It's the same here. On the surface it's shocking and offensive, but when you learn of prior behavior it becomes reasonable to doubt a reporter that hid his direct participation in news stories he was reporting. It seems more likely to me the victim seeks fame and fortune rather than justice.
The medium is relevant due to state lines. This is a Federal offense, where the guilty party goes to big boy prison and never gets a good job interview again. For what is widely viewed as an Internet prank. Pretty sure there's a Simpson episode with a similar prank too.
Disabled people have many precautions they take just to get thru each day. Many are required by law to report their medical status on a regular basis. It's not a stretch to ask if any precautions were taken in this case because if none were and a doctor had advised the victim differently there is less merit here.
1. first amendment does not mean you can say or do whatever you wish 2. if the we can assume the facts are correct, the guy should be punished accordingly
which, if i understand correctly, are two points you'd not even disagree with, barring any new evidence.
Sending pictures of hamburgers, porn, candy and alcohol will be illegal because it can cause people to become obese, suffer stroke, and disease, and an erection.
In other news, the proprietors of hundreds of optical illusion sites have had their homes raided and being kept in prison cells for inciting physical distress on the public.
Soon there will be takedown requests to remove search results for sites that discuss optical illusions or link to sites that link to sites that -may- cause some physical distress
It's so refreshing to finally be on the same page.
I'd like to see you explain how that isn't an intentional attempt to physically harm the journalist in question.
There are dozens of things that fall under the same legal category, such as pranks (often harmless unless they go wrong) that end up physically harming someone, that will properly get you in serious trouble.
It's a shame you are not a lawyer or a judge.
Your sarcastic and aggressive tone in this thread isn't helping you get your point across.
Well, quite often after judges are involved, but before determinations of guilt. Arrest warrants are, after all, a thing.
Cheers, and happy St. Patrick.
This is a philosophical debate and we are on a very interesting line that is worthy of passionate discussion.
It is not as clear cut as many people say.
We aggressively advertise harmful substances to people, KNOWING full well that MILLIONS of people will be imprinted at a young age and result in disastrous consequences for their health (Seizures! And more).
Giving kids sugar at a young age and making them addicted to sugary cereals with "prizes" in the box should result in a much greater pumishment than what these chumps did.
I know they are on a different scale. But your reaction is a pre-reflective one and likely due to the novelty of this "assault".
We will see if these writings are vindicated or not based on a guilty/not-guilty. Then we can read the Judge's PDF and see what philosophical consideratioms were at play.
You are stating here that "we" are aggressively advertising harmful substances to people that will cause them to have seizures?
Poor snowflake. You're so special people can't call you out when you're throwing up shit on a website.