
Jeffrey Epstein's Death Was on 4Chan Before Officials Announced It - one2zero
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/fdny-review-jeffrey-epstein-4chan-post
======
52-6F-62
A lot of people are stepping out to defend 4chan, but the article isn't about
4chan. It's a detail in the story.

The story is that someone close to the situation leaked details in violation
of HIPAA on an internet message board.

And from a correctional facility, no less. The whole thing is a mess.

 _edit: spelling_

~~~
DoreenMichele
_in violation of HIPPA_

HIPAA would cover healthcare in prison. It wouldn't cover, say, what prison
guards can talk about.

They may have other rules that indicate this is inappropriate, but HIPAA
covers specific institutions, such as hospitals, medical personnel generally
and health insurance. It doesn't actually cover anyone who ever learned
anything about your health for some reason.

~~~
52-6F-62
I wasn't speculating on the content of the article so much as just speaking to
what it's actually about when many commenters were focusing on the fact that
4chan was in the headline.

I generally had otherwise considered correctional facilities to be rather
mum—but it's a little different here in Canada.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Your general point is accurate. It's generally not acceptable to leak such
info.

But this is only a HIPAA violation if it was leaked by medical personnel (or
some other covered entity). At this time, we don't know who leaked it, so we
don't know that HIPAA applies.

The article suggests it probably doesn't. It was apparently reviewed and found
to be some third party, not EMS personnel.

~~~
52-6F-62
This is a side question to your points—and completely hypothetical for my own
curiosity:

In this case would a guard leaning into the cell, watching and listening to
the revival or treatment attempts by EMT personnel and leaking that
information approach these laws in anyway?

For instance if Epstein was living and being treated but on the verge of death
and the EMT staff didn't make any attempts to prevent spectators who proceeded
to leak the information—

who would be at fault in such a case? Or does that also fall outside of HIPAA
in the US?

~~~
DoreenMichele
HIPAA has a _minimum necessary_ standard of disclosure. Ideally, EMS staff
should try to put a stop to lurid interest of that sort (keeping in mind that
their first focus will be emergency medical care, not policing who happens to
be nearby, possibly for legitimate reasons) and could be held liable if what
was leaked was due to things _they actually said to a third party._

But I think you would probably have to pass a test of _reasonableness._ If you
are getting medical treatment in a public space, there's only so much EMS can
do to protect your privacy.

In practice, it's really hard to strictly comply with HIPAA and many
institutions routinely violate it in small ways.

From what I gather, law enforcement, such as prison guards, have their own
rules covering confidentiality. But I don't think a prison guard would be
covered by HIPAA. A leak by a prison guard would have to be dealt with via
other channels.

~~~
52-6F-62
Thanks for the insights and humouring my curiosity!

------
malvosenior
This really shows the value of anonymity on the internet. Buzzfeed may try to
label 4chan a “haven for far-right trolls and white nationalists” but it’s
exactly the type of platform we need right now. It’s at the very least a check
on mainstream media, which has proven itself very untrustworthy.

~~~
joshuamorton
How does this show any of that? That reported by the channer wasn't materially
different than what was reported by the mainstream, they just broke the story
earlier and, as mentioned, possibly by doing something illegal.

To be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with anonymity on the
internet. But anonymity on the internet, this story showing the value of that
anonymity, and this relating the the mainstream media aren't at all related,
at least in my mind. Mind clarifying?

As I see it, one can be anonymous on, say, twitter, which is still moderated,
and therefore has (less) open organization of "far-right trolls and white
nationalists". So its not clear to me what unique anonymity 4chan provides.

~~~
malvosenior
It’s valuable because you can compare what the media reports to what was
posted on 4chan and look for discrepancies. It _may_ also keep the media
reporting more honest as they know the story broke on 4chan and deviations
will be noticed.

Twitter is an ultra short form platform that has already demonstrated
political censorship. It also requires account verification through email and
sometimes phone number. I don’t think it compares to 4chan for something like
this.

~~~
joshuamorton
> It’s valuable because you can compare what the media reports to what was
> posted on 4chan and look for discrepancies.

This only works if you hold 4chan to be _more_ reliable than the media. Given
its history (think, like, QAnon) and love of trolling, this doesn't really
work. This story was notable mostly because 4chan is notoriously unreliable.

> Twitter is an ultra short form platform that has already demonstrated
> political censorship.

Right, but you said that anonymity was important, not censorship. Is anonymity
important, or is lack of censorship what matters? They're not the same thing.

~~~
DuskStar
> > It’s valuable because you can compare what the media reports to what was
> posted on 4chan and look for discrepancies.

> This only works if you hold 4chan to be more reliable than the media. Given
> its history (think, like, QAnon) and love of trolling, this doesn't really
> work. This story was notable mostly because 4chan is notoriously unreliable.

IMO, it also works if you view them both as unreliable but in different ways.
Them agreeing is a stronger signal of truth than either independently.

~~~
LyndsySimon
I agree.

I keep up with current events mostly through a couple of very popular niche
forums, each with a few hundred thousand members. The news posted there is
biased, of course, but mostly it's a selection bias. I use it because my
interests (if not necessarily my perspective) overlap with those forums'
topics. When I find something that piques my interest, then I'll seek out
other sources for that particular story.

I spend the majority of my "what's going on in the world?" time on ar15.com -
but I don't assume that the stories posted there are accurate. I judge the
reputation of the source from which it came, and if it's contentious, I'll
purposefully look for alternative reporting.

The bottom line is that _no_ news outlet, "mainstream" or not, is without
bias. There are decisions made on what constitutes news and stories are
editorialized both explicitly and implicitly.

There was a time when I spent a decent amount of time on 4chan, but the SNR is
so low these days and the format is so hard to keep up with that I haven't
bothered in years. Instead, I watch secondary sources who are watching the
chans.

~~~
bigred100
I haven’t read ar15.com but at first glance my thought was: “Why would you
hurt yourself by filling your head with such nonsense instead of just reading
all or part of some reputable news service?”

People don’t acknowledge the long-term costs (social or otherwise) of not
making the right choice in this area. Spend too much time playing Sam Harris
and now your wife is embarrassed to bring you to parties for fear of an
outburst about Muslims. Read some other forum and now you’re fixated on weird
parts of the news and an oddball narrative. Read an even worse forum and
you’re dragged into political radicalization. These things happen everyday and
we’re all at risk.

~~~
nradov
Cut the alarmist nonsense. Anyone like me who has critical thinking skills
isn't at risk of political radicalization. And I don't care to be told what
the "right" choice is.

~~~
bigred100
Dislike

~~~
effingwewt
You don't have to like something for it to be correct.

~~~
bigred100
Getting your news from ar15.com is not correct in any meaningful
interpretation

~~~
LyndsySimon
Who said they "get their news from ar15.com"? I said I keep up with current
events through that forum (and others). It serves as an aggregator for
political topics for me in much the same way that this site serves as an
aggregator for tech topics.

------
michannne
It was predicted by almost everyone that he would die somehow before revealing
whatever information he may have had, so it was not surprising in the least.
Further, 4chan is not a secret club -- you go to the site and you can create
however many threads you wish, and reply to whoever, however, and however many
times you want, no registration or signup process exists, so it's not
surprising that Epstein's death, conspiracies of which run rampant on 4chan,
would be leaked randomly by someone involved in dealing with the situation, it
happens all the time actually.

~~~
rwc
Read beyond the headline. Specifics about attempts to revive him (including
drugs used) were also shared before they were public information.

~~~
jordigh
But also, generic information, as the expert reviewing the post remarked. On
the other hand, the apparent correct use of jargon does seem to indicate that
the poster could be an EMT themselves.

------
mlb_hn
For those that don't read the article, someone posted about the medical
response to Epstein's suicide on 4Chan before the news picked it up. A lot of
people had access to that information at the time.

~~~
joncrane
So some 4channer was presumably listening to police/EMS scanners for the area
of the prison Epstein was in and "got the scoop" that way?

~~~
matt-attack
Or the 4chan user _was_ one of the medical staff, EMT, prison guard, prison
employee, ambulance driver, anything.

All this is about is a HIPPA violation but I’m not sure why HIPPA would apply
when the person is dead. How can you wrong a dead person? Are the dead still
guaranteed privacy rights? Seems a bit odd to me.

~~~
dole
"The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects the individually identifiable health
information about a decedent for 50 years following the date of death of the
individual."

[https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-
professionals/privacy/guidance...](https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-
professionals/privacy/guidance/health-information-of-deceased-
individuals/index.html)

------
holstvoogd
And that was on reddit before buzzfeed found out :P

------
rdtsc
> We looked at the information provided by [a BuzzFeed News] reporter

Buzzfeed is worried about HIPAA violations. Good thing to worry about in
general, but perhaps this is not the best case to champion that cause...

They could look into the type of plea deal he got previously and why he got
it. Or, say, comb through all the recently unsealed evidence and compile a
spreadsheet of who flew to his island and how often. Now, that would make some
good investigative reporting.

~~~
parliament32
Buzzfeed is not bound by HIPAA, because they are not medical personnel nor a
medical institution.

~~~
rdtsc
Sure, but they made sure to investigate this worrying case of HIPAA violation
by asking department heads for comments and seeing if they are looking to find
the leaker. In other words, amongst all the things to investigate around
Epstein that particular one seems like an odd choice.

~~~
uxp
The media is generally regarded the same when publishing both medical history
information and classified materials. If they obtain the information during
their regular course of business and report on that obtained material, then
they are protected as reporting on a story that is beneficial to the public.
If they coerce others or help to obtain protected information, whether
classified materials or PHI/PII, then they can be held liable for the release
against the existing laws regulating disclosure.

------
gist
Unclear to me why people seem to think that a major station announcing
something that they got (very generally) from some official release makes the
same info (obtained some other way) nefarious in nature. Could be as simple as
someone at the prison who saw what happened (employee or guard) and relaying
it to someone by cell phone. I would find it hard to believe that doing so
would break a law that would involve a significant penalty or risk. For that
matter even the ME office driver (or whatever was used) might have had early
wind of what was going on and relayed it to a third party. Who cares? I am
sure they don't sign NDA's for this type of thing.

------
gnicholas
This was posted on HN yesterday, but was flagged for some reason. Does anyone
know why?
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20687284](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20687284)

~~~
excalibur
Probably because it's too mainstream, which is actually against the rules
(◔_◔)

> Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of
> some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute
> animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

Also because anybody can flag something for any arbitrary reason, regardless
of what the rules say.

~~~
prashnts
Off topic, but on phone the « flag » link is super tiny and close to date
(permalink). I have accidentally tapped it while scrolling more often than I
realise.

------
billiam
who cares? Why is this at all surprising or interesting?

------
misiti3780
so one of the 1st responders has a 4chan account. what exactly is the big deal
here (besides the fact he/she probably broke the law)

~~~
jordigh
Not sure if you're aware, but we all "have" a 4chan account. Meaning, you
don't need an account to post there. It's kind of the point of chan-like
boards.

~~~
misiti3780
i was not aware of that. honestly - i have tried to check out the site
multiple times but the layout of the conversation is so confusing to me i give
up every time.

------
dooglius
And this fact was pointed out on 4chan several days ago

------
sgammon
I absolutely love that hn doesn’t buy this bs

~~~
raldi
I can't tell if you're referring to the suicide report it or the idea it was
actually a murder.

------
whenchamenia
So is unregulated news the real reason they want the rest of the chans shut
down? It seems 4chan at least, already capitulates to all LE demands.

~~~
michannne
Improbable. Liveleak, Abovetopsecret, WorldStarHipHop, and Twitter (to some
extent) all have unregulated news feeds, are pretty popular, and have "in-
groups". They all have content moderation to stay on LE's good side and
despite hosting violent content, actively try to prune content that violates
laws. This includes 4Chan. 8Chan was a different story though, there was
almost 0 effort to moderate content. Few people seem to remember a couple of
the largest boards on 8Chan for some time were pro-pedophilia boards, and they
stayed up for quite some time. Of course, the actual underbelly of those
boards were composed of creating and sharing material through other sites and
applications, and announcing this through 8chan. They could not take down the
board without defeating the purpose of the site, and could not keep it up
without voluntarily allowing for a breeding ground for illegal material, so
many of their vendors wanted them off their platform for a while because they
could not be moderated effectively.

I think it boils down to - can you reasonably catch illegal content being
routed through your platform? 4chan, LiveLeak, WorldStar, ATS, and Twitter all
have ways of doing this, 4chan's may be more crude because there are certain
things you cannot do on 4chan because of the way the site is designed (for
instance, webm's with sound are isolated to a few boards, so you lose a
channel of communication when posting them outside of those boards, and you
cannot upload documents directly except through labyrinthine methods, many
users don't want to click a link and be taken to a different site so you lose
that population, etc.), but it does the job to LE's standards. Many people
hate it, but there is no benefit in taking it down because the culture would
simply migrate elsewhere.

------
techntoke
Jeffrey Epstein's death was predicted by 50% of the population before
officials announced it.

~~~
BubRoss
This wasn't a prediction, it was someone saying what happened when it happened
before it was reported in the media.

~~~
pacoWebConsult
With details of medical treatment that would be administered in the case of a
heart attack. Interesting that we have no details of what induced said heart
attack.

------
marsRoverDev
4chan is basically a million monkeys on typewriters, so it's unsurprising
they've managed to predict the death of Epstein. Let's not forget that every
man and his dog on reddit and elsewhere immediately predicted this guy would
get suicided. It was as predictable as the tide going in and out.

~~~
matt-attack
Why is is hard to believe that any of the probably 20 or 30 people involved in
managing his death went it 4chan to post about it? There were many people who
knew of his death beforehand from jail personnel, prison guards, EMT, hospital
nurses, Doctors, other hospital staff.

Why wouldn’t one of them have just broken the news? Frankly I don’t see how
it’s worse for them to break the news to 4chan than for the prison to break it
to ABC news. He was dead and they announced it. Why does everything have to be
“official”?

~~~
Amezarak
Because mainstream corporate media has trained us to believe “journalism”
consists of a media conglomerate regurgitating official press releases, access
journalism, and every now and then some intrepid reporter backed by a
multimillion dollar company discovering some scoop.

The idea that regular folks can disseminate true information on their own is
very disturbing to a lot of people.

