32 ms·

What happens if some 10 year old in say Russia, for example (lol), used Bitcoin he made from a few minutes of mining in the very early days of Bitcoin, to purch

What happens if some 10 year old in say Russia, for example (lol), used Bitcoin he made from a few minutes of mining in the very early days of Bitcoin, to purchase a black hat SEO campaign, spamming social networks like Twitter, Tumblr, and Reddit with a click-baity title and purchased upvotes/likes/retweets, spreading a gif like this across US social networks. Would our law enforcement convince, or manually penetrate the networks of the black hat SEO service spending possibly millions of dollars to maybe track down this 10 year old, to find out they have no jurisdiction over him? What if someone had an unsecured hotspot on their phone and local LE accused the person who owned the phone of this? Are local LE's capable of deciphering the possibly extremely technical misdirections one could easily employ? What if someone reads WikiLeaks, and used one of the exposed zero day exploits to frame a mobile phone user of this. What if someone's friend knows their WiFi password and does the same thing, spoofing the owners Mac address? What prevents a 10 year old kid from sending anyone they dislike to court for who knows how long, requiring them to amass legal fees to defend themselves. What happens if one of the enormous number of people who have RAT's from malware on their computer from being set up in this manner? What if someone creates their own image hosting server, and they swap all the images hosted, out for this gif? What happens if someone hacks said img hoster and does the same? What if it is a massive free, fast image hoster, and they are hacked and this happens? If the precident dictates that this could potentially kill people, what standards of security should image hosters be held to? Should they be required to pay for the same annual audits companies who handle credit card info do? Or should they be held to the standards of government contractors? Seems like they are effectively claiming the security of image hosters is an order of magnitude more vital than any other company. What if a kid uses the WikiLeaks zerodays which were purposely not exposed by the CIA, provided the entry for this 'prankster'? Can any potential victims sue the government. Since we've established that feelings matter, how is a gif like this different then offending someone to an absurd degree? I've seen several articles from multiple news sources from different countries, detailing the enforcement of hate speech crimes; for example, Western countries making it illegal to speak out against islam? Are offenses of those nature subject to similar accountibility? Are law enforcement agencies equipped well enough to be certain that no misdirection or projection of the actions onto another was utilized? Obviously one could go on for eternity like this. Making it simple for anyone with Google to lock someone up who they dislike. Seems to me that a person who is susceptible to these triggers, should find a solution on their end to somehow inhibit the effectiveness of such weapons. If all jurisdictions were to take this seriously, whether it's a 'meme' charge or attempted murder, one could backlog an entire countries legal system for years for a small sum of money. Tbh, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, and the few comments I read, are equally ignorant. What if, the defendant in op's story denies the accusations. What if his friend did it from his phone while he was sleeping, and never told a soul? Good luck using the internet, everyone. Hide your kids, hide your wife.

jacquesm 10y ago
It does not appear that anything you wrote in that wall of text has any application to the case in the linked article.
- 69mlgsniperdad 10y ago
  Convicting a person who allegedly posted an image on the internet, with intent to trigger a sizeure in another, sets the precident for every means of distribution of a similar image that I listed off to be treated as attempted murder or whatever charges come of this. Name one thing in my wall of text that is not an implication of this story; Unless you are implying this article is on hackernews, only to foster discussion of the technical aspects of a subpoena of personal information?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > Convicting a person who allegedly posted an image on the internet, with intent to trigger a sizeure in another, sets the precident for every means of distribution of a similar image that I listed off to be treated as attempted murder or whatever charges come of this. You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of 'intent' in criminal law. This was a message targeted at an individual with specific intent to cause seizures. All your hypotheticals have no basis in fact. > Name one thing in my wall of text that is not an implication of this story; Every one of them? > Unless you are implying this article is on hackernews, only to foster discussion of the technical aspects of a subpoena of personal information? No, it is on HN because enough people found it interesting to warrant discussion of this actual case. Fantasy need not enter the discussion unless it bears some connection to reality, making stuff up out of whole cloth is not going to further the discussion in a meaningful way, no matter how long you make your walls of text.
    - 69mlgsniperdad 10y ago
      Proving intent in most cases, is extremely costly and difficult. Are you familiar with the concept of 'precedent' in criminal law? If some goofy, or troubled and confused child, plants jalapeno peppers in his yard, with the intent that that Shia Labeouf hitchhikes across the country, develops an allergy to Jalapenos and trespasses and picks the jalapenos and wipes them all over his face and dies, should the government allocate resources, obtain warrants, and investigate said intent? The internet contains mechanisms to completely obfuscate identity, to varying degrees, with ease; anyone can access it, there is virtually no accountability in many cases. There are no qualifications required, no definitive rules, no required courses, and there is no required key or credential to partake. It provides more abstraction, more distance between parties, less immediate responses, less certainty of truth, and very few implications are inherently evident to the naive. It is easier to make the decision to take action, and more dangerous, in every facet I can think of, than firearms are. We definitely need to issue certifications, credentials, consequences, training course mandates and massive regulations asap. Aside from the epileptic, I know of someone who experience transient psychosis, often leading to complete mental breakdown, upon seeing images of kittens. The doctors have been thus far unable to identify the root cause of the condition, but kitten pictures are extremely risky. He's only ten years old, and his mom lets him browse 4chan for twelve hours a day, and is in grave danger. I think any condition affecting more than seven people, need be addressed; INTERNET KILLS. Is the word 'fantasy' commonly used to describe future, similar cases in the legal world? Are you familiar with the word 'implications' or 'citations' in the English language? How about 'money', 'foolishness', 'wastefulness' or 'petty'? The phrase: 'insufferable ignorance'?

jacquesm 10y ago

It does not appear that anything you wrote in that wall of text has any application to the case in the linked article.

69mlgsniperdad 10y ago
Convicting a person who allegedly posted an image on the internet, with intent to trigger a sizeure in another, sets the precident for every means of distribution of a similar image that I listed off to be treated as attempted murder or whatever charges come of this. Name one thing in my wall of text that is not an implication of this story; Unless you are implying this article is on hackernews, only to foster discussion of the technical aspects of a subpoena of personal information?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > Convicting a person who allegedly posted an image on the internet, with intent to trigger a sizeure in another, sets the precident for every means of distribution of a similar image that I listed off to be treated as attempted murder or whatever charges come of this. You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of 'intent' in criminal law. This was a message targeted at an individual with specific intent to cause seizures. All your hypotheticals have no basis in fact. > Name one thing in my wall of text that is not an implication of this story; Every one of them? > Unless you are implying this article is on hackernews, only to foster discussion of the technical aspects of a subpoena of personal information? No, it is on HN because enough people found it interesting to warrant discussion of this actual case. Fantasy need not enter the discussion unless it bears some connection to reality, making stuff up out of whole cloth is not going to further the discussion in a meaningful way, no matter how long you make your walls of text.
  - 69mlgsniperdad 10y ago
    Proving intent in most cases, is extremely costly and difficult. Are you familiar with the concept of 'precedent' in criminal law? If some goofy, or troubled and confused child, plants jalapeno peppers in his yard, with the intent that that Shia Labeouf hitchhikes across the country, develops an allergy to Jalapenos and trespasses and picks the jalapenos and wipes them all over his face and dies, should the government allocate resources, obtain warrants, and investigate said intent? The internet contains mechanisms to completely obfuscate identity, to varying degrees, with ease; anyone can access it, there is virtually no accountability in many cases. There are no qualifications required, no definitive rules, no required courses, and there is no required key or credential to partake. It provides more abstraction, more distance between parties, less immediate responses, less certainty of truth, and very few implications are inherently evident to the naive. It is easier to make the decision to take action, and more dangerous, in every facet I can think of, than firearms are. We definitely need to issue certifications, credentials, consequences, training course mandates and massive regulations asap. Aside from the epileptic, I know of someone who experience transient psychosis, often leading to complete mental breakdown, upon seeing images of kittens. The doctors have been thus far unable to identify the root cause of the condition, but kitten pictures are extremely risky. He's only ten years old, and his mom lets him browse 4chan for twelve hours a day, and is in grave danger. I think any condition affecting more than seven people, need be addressed; INTERNET KILLS. Is the word 'fantasy' commonly used to describe future, similar cases in the legal world? Are you familiar with the word 'implications' or 'citations' in the English language? How about 'money', 'foolishness', 'wastefulness' or 'petty'? The phrase: 'insufferable ignorance'?