
FBI Arrests Man For Allegedly Sending Journalist Seizure-Causing GIF - mudil
http://gizmodo.com/fbi-arrests-man-for-allegedly-sending-journalist-seizur-1793375081
======
coding123
I think on the face of it these types of things sound ridiculous. For example
everyone knows that murder is murder. And everyone knows that an accident is
an accident. But what might seem like an accident, but was actually
perpetrated on purpose because of knowledge of a condition, that's murder.

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.

~~~
tptacek
Not really. Message board nerds may not care much about intent, but intent is
_most_ of what the law cares about. If it's really the GIF this person is
being charged for, then the prosecution will simply present evidence to prove
to a jury that the accused deliberately attempted to trigger a Eichenwald's
seizure.

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.

~~~
mindslight
You've mischaracterized it as a strawman of "message board nerds", but it's
actually a respectable philosophical distinction between purely executable
semantics and ambient authority.

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)

~~~
tptacek
If it will spare us a long and unproductive debate can we just stipulate that
I'm speaking positively and not normatively? Whatever your philosophical
leanings might be, intent is basically the fulcrum for most of US criminal law
as it exists in the real world.

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.

~~~
mindslight
In a sense that's following my point - describing the _executable semantics_
of the legal system, sure. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a
_purely positive_ statement, as simply explaining how something works _also
promulgates it_. This is a basic tenet of how the legal system bootstraps its
own justification - notice, publication, etc.

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.

------
khazhou
Anyone have a link to good GIFs? I couldn't find any. I'm very curious to see
what these look like.

[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...](http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb217/powercrazy13/you-deserve-a-
seizure.gif)

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?

~~~
usernametbd
Weird how mind works. I clicked the link ONLY to see if the gifs are there.
Didn't read a single line in the article, closed and came to comments to see
if it's here.

~~~
elastic_church
its more efficient, many times

------
zipwitch
Obligatory _Snow Crash_ reference along with the increasingly redundant
observation that we really are living in a cyberpunk dystopia.

------
M_Grey
You know, if the man had fallen and died, this would be an open-and-shut case
of 2nd degree murder via "depraved indifference".

------
goda90
How technically difficult would it be to make a browser extension that detects
and pauses videos and gifs that might cause a seizure? Are the conditions that
cause seizures pretty well known so that something specific can be detected?

~~~
15155
Videos - disable autoplay.

GIFs - adblock them? as far as detection goes - you could detect vast color
shifts at high frequencies.

------
wnevets
If random gifs can trigger your seizures then maybe you need to browse the
internet with gifs disabled.

~~~
M_Grey
Right. If I can break into your house, I should get your stuff. You should
have had better locks and thicker doors. /s

~~~
castis
My knee jerk reaction was to respond "Well hold on now, that doesn't sound
right..." but I'm now guessing you're trying to point out some absurdity in
OPs comment?

~~~
M_Grey
That's absolutely correct, and I added a "/s" to clarify that. I should never
forget Poe's Law after all.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

------
Overtonwindow
Maybe I'm missing it but what, precisely, is this guy charged with?

~~~
maxvu
There's a PDF of an incident report linked: assault.

~~~
Overtonwindow
Assault ....via the Internet‽ That's a new one. I can't wait to see this
played out in court.

------
donatj
On the one hand, those are awful horrible people who sent him the gifs, on the
other hand I feel like sending someone a gif is protected free speech? I'm
very torn.

Also I don't know what app he is using but they don't autoplay for me… So it
seems… avoidable.

~~~
vonkow
Just like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater (where there is no fire),
sending someone a gif in the hopes that it causes a seizure is not protected
speech. It's assult.

~~~
cloakandswagger
Slippery slope. If I tell someone on the internet to kill themselves and it
turns out they're actually suicidally depressed, should I be charged with a
crime?

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.

~~~
favorited
Eichenwald didn't "turn out" to have epilepsy – he had written about it
before. This was someone intentionally attempting to harm someone by
triggering a seizure.

And your hypothetical situation _isn 't_ hypothetical – people who cyberbully
others into committing suicide are certainly charged for their crimes.

------
Nugem_
Imagine if the man viewed this while driving, crashed and died or killed
others.

~~~
mnm1
Then I'd have no sympathy for him and if he survived he should be put in jail
for manslaughter, possibly even murder. The guy knows these devices do this to
him yet continues to use them. If he's using these devices behind the wheel
(or IMO at all) he's being irresponsible. He needs to take responsibility for
his actions and stop blaming others. In other words, he's responsible for his
own actions (using devices that can cause seizures) and their consequences
(getting a seizure) like everyone else at all times.

------
exabrial
Yikes. While I feel bad for the journalist, this has some serious implications

~~~
Analemma_
It really doesn't. This is assault and battery, and will be punished like any
other assault and battery case.

------
jawns
[Deleted]

~~~
Analemma_
The victim not taking the appropriate steps to avoid something harmful to them
is never, ever a defense in assault cases. It's not as if we punish muggers
less severely if they mugged someone in a bad neighborhood where the victim
shouldn't have been walking.

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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull).
So the fact that they did know and intentionally caused an attack is certainly
punishable.

------
darkstar999
Slippery slope? What if I post a seizure gif to twitter, not addressed to
anyone in particular? Can I be charged if some random person sees it?

~~~
diabeetusman
You can swing your arms around as much as you like, but if you swing them into
someone's face, that's illegal. As someone posted above, you can make food
with peanuts as much as you'd like, but if you sneak peanuts into someone's
meal who you know is allergic to peanuts, that's illegal.

Tweeting gifs? Fine. Tweeting gifs at someone with the intent to cause harm?
Illegal

------
hl5
Eichenwald has made many enemies and intentionally became part of his own
reporting. He is his own victim. That a reporter like that would challenge the
first amendment with a naive emotionally charged approach should give anyone
pause.

[http://nymag.com/guides/money/2007/39957/](http://nymag.com/guides/money/2007/39957/)

~~~
catshirt
> "challenge the first amendment"

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?

~~~
hl5
Perhaps Muslims are owed justice for the imagery assaulting their prophet?

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.

~~~
catshirt
my point is simply that many types of expression and speech are not protected
by the first amendment. period. there is nothing contradictory or ironic of a
journalist challenging the first amendment in court.

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.

~~~
hl5
It's not reasonable to introduce additional first amendment restrictions or
award damages in response to targeted prank tweets by internet trolls.

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.

~~~
catshirt
to get this out of the way: if he lied, that is a completely different
subject. nor is it for us to judge. nor am i interested in speculating.

> 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?"

~~~
hl5
"Who in their right mind goes around serving up seizures..."

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.

~~~
catshirt
hm. i think we're seeing eye to eye. you seem more willing to speculate but
that is not an offense. the only points i wanted to make are:

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.

------
sauronlord
What's next?

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

~~~
Vosporos
Nah, what's next is that you will see a friend of yours die because of their
allergies to a product that wasn't indicated on the package. Will you spit on
the grave, or will you realize that you aren't alone in this world and your
apparent absence of triggers doesn't prevent you from being a shithead?

Cheers, and happy St. Patrick.

~~~
sauronlord
Nice ad-hominem.

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.

~~~
Vosporos
>Nice ad-hominem.

Poor snowflake. You're so special people can't call you out when you're
throwing up shit on a website.

~~~
khazhou
Your reply right there was pure ad hominem :-)

