That also includes this gem:
"* As an aside, look closely at that criminal complaint against Shafer. I have no idea why but it appears that the FBI/DOJ is so clueless that rather than submitting the final complaint, they actually submitted the copy showing the "comments" on the Word doc they were using to prepare the complaint -- which shows two comments that both suggest the FBI is well aware that this complaint is weak sauce and probably doesn't meet the standard under the law... but this story is crazy enough without spending too much time on that."
TechDirt phrases this as if to make light of the charge, but Rivello intentionally triggered Eichenwald's epilepsy by sending him a flashing GIF that read "YOU DESERVE A SEIZURE FOR YOUR POSTS". He followed this up with messages such as "I hope this sends him into a seizure", "spammed this at [Eichenwald] let's see if he dies", and "I know he has epilepsy". So what we're talking here extends beyond the typical case of Twitter harassment.
I know there's been some research in the area, but I don't see much in the way of practical programs or screen filters:
https://phys.org/news/2009-07-software-tool-web-seizure-caus...
Wonder if that'll get brought up in court. Can any lawyers weigh in?
Really? I've been reading it pretty regularly since the year it started (20 years ago) and wouldn't characterize it that way at all. One of the authors is quite snarky, true, but Masnick, the founder, isn't.
> The DoJ almost always has a strategy. With the litany of secret processes the US Government navigates, there's no reason to think that they are acting "crazy" when we know there is a lack of information about what is possible.
(This is independent of my comment about Techdirt). The DoJ is an institution constituted of humans and is capable of the same rationalities, irrationalities, and prejudices as any other organization. Looking over the last 120 years (since 1900) it's had highs to be proud of and lows to be ashamed of.
> Third, when I read the subpoena yesterday, I was suddenly gripped with exactly the sort of impulses that I urge clients to resist: the overpowering urge to do something and talk to someone to straighten it all out. I was tempted to email the AUSA and introduce myself, and to argue that it's ridiculous that he subpoenaed my identity, and ask what the hell he wants. That, of course, would be extremely stupid, even though I've done nothing wrong — perhaps especially because I've done nothing wrong. Fortunately, just as I plead with clients to resist this urge to reach out to the government, I resisted it myself. But I must admit it is powerful.
> Mike says Wouldn't you also urge your clients to resist the impulse to blog about these things?
> Here's how it works. The feds identify some fact that they can prove. It need not be inherently incriminating; it might be whether you were at a particular meeting, or whether you talked to someone about the existence of the investigation. They determine that they have irrefutable proof of this fact. Then, when they interview you, they ask you a question about the fact, hoping that you will lie. Often they employ professional questioning tactics to make it more likely you will lie — for instance, by phrasing the question or employing a tone of voice to make the fact sound sinister. You — having already been foolhardy enough to talk to them without a lawyer — obligingly lie about this fact. Then, even though there was never any question about the fact, even though your lie did not deter the federal government for a microsecond, they have you nailed for a false statement to a government agent in violation of 18 USC 1001.
If you don't talk to the government, there is no danger that you'll slip up and talk yourself into a felony conviction. Yes, the risk is less if you're a lawyer and know what to watch out for, but why risk it? There is literally no upside. After all, no federal agent worth her salt is going to change her investigation just because a potential suspect "cleared up some misunderstanding" with a quick phone call.
There's a lot of randomness in which submission of an article happens to get noticed. It sucks if you got there sooner and someone else wins the lottery, but if you repeatedly submit good stories, it evens out in the long run.
When we put stories in the second-chance queue (described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380 and links back from there), we always try to privilege the original submitter.
Of course - it's cheap to fire them off, and there's virtually no downside to doing so as far as I'm aware. (Short of the fact that the time can be put to better use.)
But the government can't _make_ twitter do what the government wants, at least not without good reason.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/70079517002382540...
