Twitter Will Hand Over Data On the User Who Sent a Seizure-Inducing Tweet To a Journalist (theverge.com) 492
Last week, an unidentified Twitter user tweeted a seizure-inducing animation at Newsweek and Vanity Fair writer Kurt Eichenwald, who has epilepsy. Now, Eichenwald has taken the first step toward identifying the user. In response to a civil suit filed by Eichenwald this week in Dallas district court, Twitter has agreed to hand over all relevant subscriber data for the user in question. The attack came in apparent retaliation for Eichenwald's aggressive coverage of President-elect Trump. From a report on the Verge: While Eichenwald has yet to file criminal charges, the civil suit was sufficient for an ex parte order from the district judge. Twitter subsequently agreed to expedited relief, declining to challenge the order or demand further evidence from Eichenwald. The next step is likely to be a lawsuit against wireless carriers or service providers implicated by Twitter's records, who will have records linking IP addresses and other metadata to the attacker's legal name.
Didn't know I could do this (Score:5, Funny)
Is it to late for me to file suit against the creators of all those geocities home pages I viewed back in the day?
Re: Didn't know I could do this (Score:5, Insightful)
Take away his gif animation tools! (Score:5, Funny)
When tweeting seizure-inducing animations becomes a crime, only criminals will tweet seizure-inducing animations.
So Twitter is now actively doxing people? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. If you try to assault someone with aid of their service, they will turn your information over to the authorities pursuant to a court order.
Re: (Score:2)
Having a Twitter account is not mandatory. You choose to have one, and you allowed access to their system under their Terms of Service (TOS).
I think Twitter accounts need to come with an equivalent of the FCC disclaimer:
This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
Re:Resisting the Court (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't we be aghast? We want tech companies to resist the courts, not comply.
Depends on the circumstances. This sounds reasonable, it was a deliberate, targeted attempt to cause physical harm to someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. One of the pillars of a criminal prosecution is intent. It's one thing to send out a seizure-inducing animation to someone, unaware that this was produce a seizure. It's another thing to target someone who you know is an epileptic with the clear intent to cause harm.
This isn't like someone sending someone with a nut allergy a candy bar with nuts in it. This is like sending someone you know has a peanut allergy a loaf of bread laced with peanut oil, with the intent of either harming or killing them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The information about the aggressor should go to the police, not the victim. I'm all for that. I have a problem with it going to the victim.
Re:Resisting the Court (Score:4, Insightful)
Since this appears to be a civil suit, then yes, suing the perpetrator means the victim get's the alleged perpetrator's identity. It's still a court ultimately ordering the identity of the individual be revealed. Why would a civil court not have the same power to compel Twitter as a criminal court?
Here's a tip for anyone thinking of pulling a stunt like this, don't do it. You will very likely end up in either in a criminal or civil court, or possibly both. If common decency won't restrain you, then how about self-preservation?
Re: (Score:3)
They are turning it over to the court under order as part of the discovery process. The court is directing that the information go to the plaintiff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. One of the pillars of a criminal prosecution is intent. It's one thing to send out a seizure-inducing animation to someone, unaware that this was produce a seizure. It's another thing to target someone who you know is an epileptic with the clear intent to cause harm.
I'm not so sure the intent is that clear. I would think it highly unlikely that a sender believes it will induce seizures, because that takes exposure time, and the subject will simply look away. I think it more likely that the intent was to provoke the recipient.
Much like dumping a bucket of water on someone is likely not an attempt to drown them, even if you know they fear drowning and can't swim. It would be technically possible for someone to drown that way, but highly unlikely.
Re: (Score:3)
When committing a tort, the tortfeasor gets responsibility for all consequences, intended or not. Considering the text accompanying the image was "you deserve a seizure", it's pretty clear what the intent was. It certainly shows that the sender was very much aware that a seizure was possible.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have epilepsy.
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't even get the opportunity to look away. By the time I've recognized that the image is harmful, it's too late.
Seizures suck. They usually cost me a couple of days of work, cut up my lips and tongue (from biting) and damage muscles in my arms and legs. The person who sent that image needs to be prosecuted - they had a real intent to cause harm.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no sympathy for people using a claim of feeling threatened as an obvious attempt at censorship. Sending an animation specifically crafted to induce seizures to someone you know is an epileptic is not free speech.
Re:Where do you stop? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Trump's "grabbing pussy" without first obtaining a written permission
I like how you've smoothly changed requiring consent into needing written permission as an attempt to discredit it. Written permission is not...
actually you know what? If you have such deep trouble understanding the concept of intent, then I think perhaps you ought to not touch any women without written permission. It's better for everyone that way.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Twitter's legal team may have reviewed the case and decided that the request had merit, or that resisting would be unlikely to succeed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Resisting the Court (Score:5, Interesting)
A false sense of persecution.
They believe that Twitter, who has willingly harbored their Nazi organization is somehow against them because one of their members who threatened to kill all jews and muslims was banned for a week over his threat.
Re:Um (Score:4, Insightful)
The sender is liable for damages?
If the sender removes the peanut warning label and intends to do harm, yes.
Seriously, what a stupid question, think about it before you just start typing shit that comes into your head.
Re:Um (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um (Score:5, Interesting)
What if the sender puts a sign on it that says "I hope you go in to anaphylactic shock?"
If so, and the person ate it anyhow, I'd say that the sender would have a plausible defense. "Your honour, I knew he had a peanut allergy. I did not know he was also a complete and utter idiot."
Re: (Score:3)
A warning of "don't look" requires you to look in order to read the warning...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe. Did you know the person had a peanut allergy? Did you intentionally send them a candy bar with peanuts in it? Did you intend to cause them harm by sending the peanut laden bar? Did you send the bar in a a way that the person was likely to be effected by the peanuts in the course of normal life?
The devil is in the details. Your example can easily be a good-faith mistake, but the tweet doesn't seem to be a mistake.
Re:Um (Score:5, Informative)
You (and the summary) leave out some significant info.
First - They've done this to him multiple times since September, knowing he has siesures
Second - They've threatened to murder him, even left things on his doorstep
Third - They broke into his Daughters school, leaving messages addressed to him threatening his daughter.
Details are important, and this is far past the line for being able to prosecute criminally for harassment and threatening harm.
Re: (Score:2)
You (and the summary) leave out some significant info.
First - They've done this to him multiple times since September, knowing he has siesures Second - They've threatened to murder him, even left things on his doorstep Third - They broke into his Daughters school, leaving messages addressed to him threatening his daughter.
Details are important, and this is far past the line for being able to prosecute criminally for harassment and threatening harm.
And yet it was one more tweet that was the final straw for him to take legal action?
Let's forget whatever he did to piss off the perpetrators for a moment. As a parent, I'm not quite sure what the fuck he was waiting for.
Re: (Score:3)
You (and the summary) leave out some significant info.
First - They've done this to him multiple times since September, knowing he has siesures Second - They've threatened to murder him, even left things on his doorstep Third - They broke into his Daughters school, leaving messages addressed to him threatening his daughter.
Details are important, and this is far past the line for being able to prosecute criminally for harassment and threatening harm.
Gonna need some sauce on these.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're equally outraged when it's on the other foot.
Well I certainly would be. Are you saying that you don't find it appalling for someone to deliberately try to induce a seizure in someone in response to an argument, regardless of 'foot'?
Re: (Score:3)
The Republican media and political leadership made a conscious choice decades ago to demonize Democrats. It has worked. They've convinced about 35% of the people that millions of their fellow Americans are not just misguided, but are evil and trying to undermine the country.
Democrats support gun control, not to reduce gun violence, but to make it easier to send you to the gas chamber.
Democrats support civil rights not because they love freedom, but because they hate white people.
Democrats support granting
Re:Um (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get why people try to defend things by saying "what about what so and so did?" Who gives a fuck? That's not a defense for this kind of crap. I don't care about politics in this situation because no matter what someone's political views he's still entitled to protection under the law. Just because someone else got fucked over is no defense. There's no way on earth to justify threatening the guys daughter. This is tantamount to the stupid bastards that try to justify jihad because someone offended muslims by making obscene pictures of allah. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Re:Um (Score:4, Informative)
I don't get why people try to defend things by saying "what about what so and so did?"
Because that is the level of sophistication people who defend this stuff have. Their only defence is "this is war, so it's justified". They also think it helps to accuse people they don't like of doing all the things that they themselves are doing. Standard wartime propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
Your posting exhibits a fascinating level of stupidity, even for an AC. The receiver in this case does not see the nature of the thing before he looks at it. That already is enough to cause damage. This is far more like a letter-bomb.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not really the same. The post was literally "you deserve a seizure".
It is interesting that infohazards will likely be handled legally about as they should be.
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/... [infinityplus.co.uk]
Re: Um (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have epilepsy, you should really turn that off.
Yeah, I mean I'm swinging my fists at you. The onus is really on you to get out of the way and protect yourself.
In the real world with actual courts and judges and everything, if you attempt to assault someone, the excuse "they should have defended themselves so its their fault for not doing so" doesn't cut it.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if you ...
If you nothing. You're completely ignoring my point. If you attempt to assault someone, and they fail to get out of the way, YOU are guilty, no matter how easily they could have got out of the way, and rightly so.
Don't believe me? Try it and see if the judge agrees with me or you. When you find out the result, let me know the terms of the sentencing.
Re:Um (Score:5, Insightful)
This is typical of our 'everyone is a victim', 'everyone gets a participation trophy' society. Nobody takes personal responsibility anymore for anything. It's symptomatic of the collapse of the USA as a former world power.
No. This is an example of someone specifically targeting the human with prior knowledge of him having epilepsy.
Re:Um (Score:5, Funny)
Would it be insensitive to call this a newsflash?
Re:Um (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Um (Score:4, Insightful)
I know he's milking this for sympathy after his rant and implosion on Tucker Carlson's show.
I am in no way familiar with the wider context of this, but you should have pointed out this extreme bias at the start rather than at the end.
You "know" someone's internal motivations, therefore what you say about them is too biased to take seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
...did the tweet actually cause him to have a seizure? Or did it just hurt his feelings?
It caused him to seize! The person responsible should be brought up on assault charges at the very least...
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1... [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It caused him to seize!
I have some concerns with taking this at face value. From all I've read, you need a prolonged exposure - more than the few milliseconds it takes to recognize it for what it is and look away. Which is why music venues can still use strobe lights, as long as they limit the time.
For now, I'd say he allegedly seized. Whether he really did so or not might need some medical expertise to weigh in - he certainly had an incentive for making people believe he did, and it's hard to prove a negative.
Re:Sooooo (Score:4, Interesting)
Who cares?
If somebody shoots at you, but misses, they still tried to kill you. Nobody would say 'oh, his feelings are just hurt that somebody was that mad at him.'
The accused formed a specific intent to harm, gathered the materials to carry out that intent, planned his assault, and carried it out. Guilty act plus guilty mind.
Re: (Score:2)
You need a bad actor that you can identify.
Leave Shatner alone!
Re:Sooooo (Score:5, Informative)
It will be hard to prove in court that the sender actually suspected a seizure would result.
The attached message 'you deserve a seizure' might be pretty good evidence. Sorry to get in the way of your rant though.
Re:Sooooo (Score:5, Informative)
There was a post on his account claiming to be his wife saying they filed a police report. Media has investigated and can fin no evidence of a report filed with various relevant police departments.
Re:Sooooo (Score:4, Interesting)
Nor any evidence of a seizure.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He was just hurt that he was exposed as a lunatic on Tucker Carlson's show, so now he's lashing out. Go find the clip for a really good laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence of a seizure would there be? Even if he went to A&E, would the hospital give out that kind of information about people? Most people who have minor seizures don't go to hospital anyway.
Sounds like more "4chan investigates" bullshit to me, about as thorough as Pizzagate no doubt.
Re:Sooooo (Score:4, Informative)
In my experience, video on Twitter begins to play once it is fully scrolled in.
Re: (Score:2)
They auto play on my phone, and have for over a year.
Re: (Score:3)
Too bad there's evidence that he filed the civil suit [courthousenews.com], with a court, case number, and filing date stamped right on it.
Puts the whole "this doesn't exist" theory to shame...
Re: (Score:3)
Assumes facts not in evidence. The dispatcher could just as easily ask for them to file a written complaint with an officer. As I've had happen to me before.
Quite simply, prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
He meant infowars, the site for people who believe facts are a liberal plot to turn their dogs gay.
Re: (Score:2)
So, do you have any evidence that a police report was filed at the time of the post? Dallas police department says no.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you see the Washington Post investigating? That is much more meaningful than your comment.
Re: (Score:2)
So people who intend to cause harm to an epileptic should be protected by companies? Interesting. What if you got a letterbomb via UPS and UPS was refusing to hand over info on the sender to the FBI, would you laud them for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: im afraid not (Score:5, Insightful)
just looking at tweets and other press releases is known as propaganda; which most of America would like, I'm afraid.
The media, theoretically, is supposed to ask hard questions.
The media is supposed to ask questions and get answers from our politicians so that the next election we can vote accordingly.
For example, "Exactly what does make America great again mean?"
Or, "How can you cut taxes, increase infrastructure spending and expect economic growth to increase tax revenues when Reagan proved it a fairy tale?"
the media this past election cycle was so inept, the we ended up with Trump.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The media ran it's credibility into the ground supporting Hillary. That's a one time thing, they can't do it again. No credibility left to burn.
Hillary really was a disaster for the Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
The media ran it's credibility into the ground supporting Hillary
The media had no credibility to run into the ground prior to the election, so you are wrong.
A giant chunk of people want to think they are one of the Lone Gunmen these days, so instead of taking the MSM as an input and balancing it against other sources, they go out and find the fringiest material they possibly can so they can live in a fantasy world where Al Gore eats puppies, and only they and their super-select twitter roll know the secret.
These people already despised the MSM so the election changed not
Re: (Score:3)
They did no such thing. In editorials they may have supported Hillary, but their excessive attention on some emails that were much ado about nothing, and their utter failure to cover anything even remotely policy related (do you remember reading stories about the candidates' positions on climate change? No? Me either) were effectively an abdication of their responsibility to report responsibly on anything.
Trump played them--he was good ratings, and they need those now. Now they can bleat about how awful a p
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
SJWs who need their safe spaces
You mean like Pence and Trump?
https://mobile.twitter.com/rea... [twitter.com]
There's Trump calling for a safe space for Pence. Doesn't that make them SJWs now? I lose track of what it's supposed to mean now because it gets used so much. I think it means "someone I don't like and by the way I'm a fuckwit".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has no intention of "cutting the press corps out of the process". His plan is to simply never face questions. He hasn't given a single press conference since July where he takes questions.
https://theweek.com/speedreads... [theweek.com]
Re:My Heart and my head (Score:5, Insightful)
If you commit a crime under partial anonymity (which is what a Twitter account is), and a warrant is issued by a judge to unmask you, then that is how the system is supposed to work. Anonymity is not, nor should it ever be an effective means of evading prosecution for criminal acts. Yes, there need to be limits such as not allowing warrantless access to data or back doors in encryption, but providing it is technically possible to unveil the perpetrator and the police have gone through the appropriate judicial channels (to assure judicial oversight), then what could your problem possibly be.
This is like arguing that if someone mails you a letter bomb, but he puts a fake return address on it, trying to determine the attacker's true identity somehow violates his privacy rights.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be assault, yes.
In this case it appears to be a lawsuit, but at the end of the day if the court deems this a legitimate case, criminal or civil, then the court has the authority to order Twitter to reveal whatever identifying data it may have on the defendant/accused.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be assault, yes.
FTFY.
But then, the actual answer would be up to a court to decide, so we agree: this action is appropriate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it was a flashing GIF that said, 'you deserve a seizure'. This was a deliberate attack.
http://cdn2.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/twitter-seizure.jpg
Re: (Score:3)
" Is it something intentionally crafted to induce seizures in epilepsy sufferers?"
That's exactly what it was, so yeah, pretty certain you can show 'intent to harm', thus assault.
Re: (Score:2)
My heart says... go get that bastard who did this.
My head says... that's a violation of privacy expectations. No one expects their details to be released to other users of the system. In this case it was perhaps justified, but if they open the door there will be other requests for private information, some less just.
Just because it is on the internet does not automatically convey the right to privacy. I'm all in favour of anonymous services to protect freedom of speech, etc. but I expect the right to privacy walking down a public street. If someone assaults me on that street, I don't care about his right to privacy, I want him arrested.
Re: (Score:3)
No one expects their details to be released to other users of the system.
This is not just "another user." It is the legal system, investigating an alleged assault.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
However, the bigger question comes, will this lead to the path of having any animation that can induce seizures anywhere online become legally liable?
No. These guys specifically threatens to give him a seizure, and tried to do so on multiple occasions as part of a longer campaign of harassment. I imagine it was the nature of those threats that convinced the court to order the information released to him.
Anyway, if you accidentally created an animation that could cause seizures you would probably want to be contacted about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:call insurance (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the alt-right, back to blaming victims.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
back to blaming victims.
The problem with "stop victim blaming!!!" is that it ignores the many times when the victim is partially to blame for getting into a situation to begin with, especially if they escalated the situation with their own actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting into an online pissing match doesn't mean you suddenly gain the right to assault people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see it as controversial at all. If you knowingly do someone bodily harm, then that is assault. It's quite something to attach "on a computer" and then declare that somehow you can argue away both intent and harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it as being like "attempted murder." Being a bad shot and missing doesn't absolve you of wrong doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, this goes back to my original point that defining sending gifs to someone as an assault is controversial. I think you have to have a trial to set precedent on this before we can call it assault.
Re: (Score:2)
Another question - what happens if attempt is not credible or has no chance to succeed? For example, I take a swing from 10 feet away without any way of landing it?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see it as controversial at all. If you knowingly do someone bodily harm, then that is assault.
IANAL, but if I understand the distinction correctly (in those jurisdictions where it exists in law):
* If you knowingly do someone bodily harm, then that is BATTERY
* If you knowingly do to someone something that would make him reasonably believe you have put him at risk of bodily harm, then that is ASSAULT.
Swing at his nose and miss by a half inch, it's assault. (So is making threats, such as by mo
Re: (Score:3)
If he sees it coming it's assault and battery.
Does he actually have to see it coming, or would he only have to have considered it a threat if he had seen it? I don't think that you have to have awareness for assault. I think it's the attempt to do harm that makes it assault.
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the local police knew a person had epilepsy and turned on their lights for no other reason than to try and induce a seizure in said person and stated that that was the reason and that they hoped it would cause a seizure, then yes I would expect that person to be filing a lawsuit of some sort.
Doesn't mean they would win such a lawsuit of course...
Re: (Score:2)
That's sad for America. In Australia a cop got charged the other day for pulling a gun on someone during a traffic stop. It was deemed unreasonable and he was stood down.
What happened that made your police psychopaths which are untouchable.
Re:illegal seizure and search (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this protected by the bizarro 4th amendment?
The 4th amendment protects against illegal search and seizure. Properly gathering evidence as part of an investigation of an alleged crime is in fact legal.
Re:illegal seizure and search (Score:5, Funny)
So in other words, a legal search regarding an illegal seizure. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words, a legal search regarding an illegal seizure. Got it.
Yeah, as another AC pointed out, I got whooshed.
Re: (Score:2)
Applying your sort of logic:
I am not an epileptic. Therefore you are a lying scumbag.
Or just maybe, different people are different, and can have different reactions. Maybe you as an epileptic might even know that there are different kinds of epilepsy.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope the LCD's framerate is plenty fast enough.
That said, I'm surprised this guy survived using the web for this long. I always thought epileptics used modified browsers to avoid being killed by these gifs, particularly obnoxious advertisements, and intentionally obnoxious websites. [lingscars.com]