3 ms·

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 distributi

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'?
  - true_religion 10y ago
    > Proving intent in most cases, is extremely costly and difficult. Are you familiar with the concept of 'precedent' in criminal law? I don't know about "most cases", but in this particular case it's fairly easy since the weapon came attached with a note saying essentially 'I am hoping this kills you, buh bye'.

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'?
- true_religion 10y ago
  > Proving intent in most cases, is extremely costly and difficult. Are you familiar with the concept of 'precedent' in criminal law? I don't know about "most cases", but in this particular case it's fairly easy since the weapon came attached with a note saying essentially 'I am hoping this kills you, buh bye'.