8 ms·

From an article related to the case [1]: > charged with criminal cyberstalking with the intent to kill or cause bodily harm and faces a maximum sentence of 10

by vmarsy 10y ago

From an article related to the case [1]: > charged with criminal cyberstalking with the intent to kill or cause bodily harm and faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison if convicted, What is even more sad: > More than 40 Twitter users sent similar strobes to Mr. Eichenwald after they realized they could trigger seizures, he tweeted Friday. The agent went through these steps to identify the suspect: - Asked Twitter about account information. (w/ search warrant) - Got phone number - Phone number was Tracfone prepaid but asked AT&T for information about phone number. AT&T could map [phone number] -> [specific iPhone model] ("DPD sent a request to AT&T") - Asked apple about iCloud account related to [phone number] (w/ search warrant) - Find selfie of accused with his DL in hand in iCloud pictures, and also a screenshot of the seizure-triggering GIF, and many other incriminating/stalking behavior items. [1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/18/twitter-user-charged-cyberstalking-over-seizure-in/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/18/twitter-user... EDIT: Added (w/ warrant search) to clarify what "Asked" meant in my summary.

rjeli 10y ago
Wow, did not realize Apple is so gung-ho about sharing iCloud data with LE. I love the Apple ecosystem but when I have to start fracturing out my services it's going to suck. edit: should have read the post. Thought "ask" meant they handed it over willingly. Apple was served a search warrant, AT&T was not.
- cottsak 10y ago
  The FBI had a warrant
  - bastawhiz 10y ago
    Yeah, if you try to _literally kill someone over the internet_ and you think any lawful company is going to fight a warrant for your data, you've got another thing coming.
    - rtpg 10y ago
      It feels like people still minimize pretty awful actions when they happen over the internet. Imagine someone running up to someone with epilepsy in public and showing them strobes? What sort of deranged person does that? Imagine someone sending death threats through snail mail over and over. Of course that's horrific! But brigaders doing it through twitter is kinda fine because "hey, you're on twitter, stupid stuff happens". So much harassement is extremely cruel but we (myself included) tend to discount it when it happens over social media.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - Latty 10y ago
        Yeah, I found that I was doing this myself. I think it's because I was always posing myself the what-ifs of "well, you could just be accidentally sending something that would trigger it...", but the law can deal with intent where most software and programing problems simply can't. Where it is clear the intent was to cause harm, we should absolutely treat these things with as much seriousness as any other attempt to harm another person.
        wolfgke 10y ago
        > but the law can deal with intent How do you come to this conclusion?
        koverstreet 10y ago
        Come on, don't be dragging the discussion down like this. If you've got something to say about mens rea, then say it.
        wolfgke 10y ago
        The law can deal with "what some judge/jury conjectures that the intent might be", but it cannot deal with intent. But this weaker statement sounds like it might be implemented in software, too.
- Shank 10y ago
  The LE guidelines are available here, if you're curious as to what they offer: http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelines-us.pdf http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guideline...
throwaway420 10y ago
> More than 40 Twitter users sent similar strobes to Mr. Eichenwald after they realized they could trigger seizures, he tweeted Friday. I'm not suggesting that these people shouldn't be charged with some sort of crime, regardless of whether or not they can prove that Eichenwald had a seizure (which I have my doubts about). There's a precedent set that things like lasers shined at pilots eyes are gone after regardless of whether or not it causes a crash. However, while not condoning these peoples' alleged actions, I can understand why this guy attracts a lot of derision online. Eichenwald appears to be a really scummy character. Google his name and "child p*rn" just for starters. There appears to be a lot of wild stuff there about a big time shady payoff to a site he was "researching". He also recently appears to be becoming mentally unhinged. He recently went on Tucker Carlson's show and gave a serious repeated accusation about Trump being hospitalized in a mental institution that he later claimed was a joke. Should be a fascinating legal case to follow if it goes to trial.

by vmarsy 10y ago

rjeli 10y ago

Wow, did not realize Apple is so gung-ho about sharing iCloud data with LE. I love the Apple ecosystem but when I have to start fracturing out my services it's going to suck. edit: should have read the post. Thought "ask" meant they handed it over willingly. Apple was served a search warrant, AT&T was not.

cottsak 10y ago
The FBI had a warrant
- bastawhiz 10y ago
  Yeah, if you try to _literally kill someone over the internet_ and you think any lawful company is going to fight a warrant for your data, you've got another thing coming.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    It feels like people still minimize pretty awful actions when they happen over the internet. Imagine someone running up to someone with epilepsy in public and showing them strobes? What sort of deranged person does that? Imagine someone sending death threats through snail mail over and over. Of course that's horrific! But brigaders doing it through twitter is kinda fine because "hey, you're on twitter, stupid stuff happens". So much harassement is extremely cruel but we (myself included) tend to discount it when it happens over social media.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Latty 10y ago
      Yeah, I found that I was doing this myself. I think it's because I was always posing myself the what-ifs of "well, you could just be accidentally sending something that would trigger it...", but the law can deal with intent where most software and programing problems simply can't. Where it is clear the intent was to cause harm, we should absolutely treat these things with as much seriousness as any other attempt to harm another person.
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        > but the law can deal with intent How do you come to this conclusion?
        koverstreet 10y ago
        Come on, don't be dragging the discussion down like this. If you've got something to say about mens rea, then say it.
        wolfgke 10y ago
        The law can deal with "what some judge/jury conjectures that the intent might be", but it cannot deal with intent. But this weaker statement sounds like it might be implemented in software, too.
Shank 10y ago
The LE guidelines are available here, if you're curious as to what they offer: http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelines-us.pdf http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guideline...

throwaway420 10y ago

> More than 40 Twitter users sent similar strobes to Mr. Eichenwald after they realized they could trigger seizures, he tweeted Friday. I'm not suggesting that these people shouldn't be charged with some sort of crime, regardless of whether or not they can prove that Eichenwald had a seizure (which I have my doubts about). There's a precedent set that things like lasers shined at pilots eyes are gone after regardless of whether or not it causes a crash. However, while not condoning these peoples' alleged actions, I can understand why this guy attracts a lot of derision online. Eichenwald appears to be a really scummy character. Google his name and "child p*rn" just for starters. There appears to be a lot of wild stuff there about a big time shady payoff to a site he was "researching". He also recently appears to be becoming mentally unhinged. He recently went on Tucker Carlson's show and gave a serious repeated accusation about Trump being hospitalized in a mental institution that he later claimed was a joke. Should be a fascinating legal case to follow if it goes to trial.