[neom]

Here is the techdirt article: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171023/18275838465/doj-s...

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."

[mintplant]

> Fast forward to March of this year, to an entirely different story: the FBI arresting John Rivello for "assaulting" journalist Kurt Eichenwald with a tweet.

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.

[Natsu]

I wonder how long it will be before someone develops a program that defends people from such content automatically?

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...

[throwanem]

If the trigger is only rapid alternation of frames with a high luminance and/or contrast delta, it seems like that could be detected fairly easily by methods not wholly dissimilar to those used in MPEG compression. But I'm not at all sure that is indeed the only trigger, and also not sure how that kind of analysis could be done close enough to realtime to make a usable display filter.

Might still be worth putting together as a library, though. I can see an easy win for sites like Twitter, which could apply it to user-submitted content before showing it to anyone.

[cwkoss]

Snowcrash IRL

[pavel_lishin]

> 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...

Wonder if that'll get brought up in court. Can any lawyers weigh in?

[rayiner]

I don't think the comments suggest that the FBI thinks the complaint "probably doesn't meet the standard under the law." They indicate that some specific posts are maybe a stretch under the law (e.g. something like it "comes close to the line"). It's embarrassing as hell, but that's about it.

[jack9]

Techdirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill. Taking a particular viewpoint and expounding on it endlessly as proper context, leaves a lot of telltale quips like how "clueless" actors are being. Postmortems years later consistently show a misunderstanding of what the goals were and why the actions seemed misdirected. 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.

[gumby]

> Techdirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill.

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.

[jack9]

> I've been reading it pretty regularly since the year it started (20 years ago) and wouldn't characterize it that way at all.

My account was purged sometime in the last 10 years, so whatever.

Here's Mike Masnick responding to me... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050809/2227209.shtml?thr...

[pigscantfly]

What possible justification is there for submitting an in-progress legal document besides a mistake?

[jack9]

I can think of 3 without any knowledge of a specific case. Potential Delay (in clarifying this matter against the case at large), Proof of Effort, FISA routinely allows for incomplete filings and go forward anyway. They aren't the only court to do this. Pope's publicity might help squash this, but it's up to a judge to allow it or not. After the information is garnered, an appeal court can overturn it and nobody can undo the discovery. Any lawyer, can probably come up with more. I'm not explaining every obvious tactic. My advice is to get familiar with how far the US intelligence community has fallen out of jurisprudence. Good Luck.

[Jesus_Jones]

your comments above sound reasonable, but your characterization of tech dirt as a rumor site is wrong in my opinion. They consistently find cases of government overreach and attempts to skirt the law. If anything, they'd be supportive of your comment above "My advice is to get familiar with how far the US intelligence community has fallen out of jurisprudence."

[jack9]

> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050809/2227209.shtml?thr...

Mike Masnick had an interesting response.

[testvox]

How does that explain the strange behavior of submitting a document in such a state though? Couldn't they have achieved any of those goals by submitting the document without the annotations?

[Natsu]

Subpoenas are quashed, not squashed, but maybe your phone did that one.

[plandis]

Is anyone surprised? The US voted for Trump who in turn picked the man to head the DOJ. Play stupid games win stupid lawsuits.