How stupid? #
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 11:41 GMT
Mind you, as a rule of thumb, anyone using a hotmail address knows absolutely bugger-all about computers, nevermind the complexities of communicating anonymously...
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 11:41 GMT
Mind you, as a rule of thumb, anyone using a hotmail address knows absolutely bugger-all about computers, nevermind the complexities of communicating anonymously...
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 11:41 GMT
Y'mean, this guy posted some threat on YouTube, and he was _arrested_? Cripes. That's hysterical. YouTube? Gimme a break.
Besides, why do we need some lone k00k to poison our baby-food supply when there's a couple of companies in China already on the job?
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 12:22 GMT
I use a hotmail address, purely to direct any spam or mailing lists to. In fact, it's exactly this sort of site (social networking type sites) that I'd use that address for, mainly because I never check it.
Although granted in this case it does seem like the rule fits.
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 13:48 GMT
I thought garbage men were meant to be unsung genuises!
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 13:48 GMT
It's more effective than waiting until after the fact... sheesh
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 14:42 GMT
"Y'mean, this guy posted some threat on YouTube, and he was _arrested_? Cripes."
Uh... yes. For the same reason you would be arrested if you put an article in the local newspaper claiming you'd poisoned the local reservoir.
Even if untrue, it's causing public disturbance, if not panic, plus costing the local economy money.
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 14:54 GMT
I know that you _CAN_ be arrested for threatening people.
I just think that it is consistently overplayed.
I got arrested for threatening someone on UseNet last summer.
I think that it's the biggest scam ever.
To think-- that some dude would take this fruitcake seriously-- is beyond belief
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 15:11 GMT
You think that the guy wasn't and couldn't be taken serious because you weren't and couldn't be serious in your usenet post?
Fruitcake is right.. in your mirror.
Paris wouldn't understand either.
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 15:35 GMT
...be a _threat_, f'crissake? We're talking about the home of cats falling off of tables, crappily-shot pitches for MLM and time-share schemes, corporate "viral marketing" pieces masquerading as home videos of unsigned bands.
(Speaking of phony threats, whatever happened with those Aqua Teen Hunger Force guys?)
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 21:01 GMT
ROFLMAO. I literally have tears in my eyes. Outstanding conclusions my man, threatening someone via the internet is of course fully permissible. Just as in the past, sending threatening mail or threatening them in person was always treated as 'having a bit of a laugh'.
I still can't get past "I got arrested for threatening someone on UseNet last summer" without cracking up.
Look, try to understand. It doesn't matter what medium you use to issue threats, particularly those that might cause public hysteria, incited racism and where very likely to cause significant cost to the company involved. No matter how unlikely, they had to take the threat seriously, which means time and money wasted investigating it. That alone is sufficient to get you into a fair bit of trouble.
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 21:01 GMT
Aaron Kempf, whether you do your threat face-to-face or via YouTube, death threats are serious and not to be taken lightly. I agree with the police to arrest Anton Dunn since he stated in clear text to poison in masses. If you ignore such threats, others would just continue to increase into a "crying wolf" syndrome and then when a real threat occurs, no one will listen. Let the police and the courts decide if this threat was real or not.
An example was when a taxi driver threaten my sister of bodily harm, including killing her unborn (she was pregnant), because of a car accident. My mother was there at the time, and she took this threat seriously, to the point that she showed up with a police officer at the taxi driver's house (the police traced the car license plate). The taxi driver stated that "it was a joke" to the police officer. Really? May be it was a joke AFTER law enforcement showed up. Anton Dunn's case sounds similar...
(BTW, the car accident was cited against the taxi driver...)
Posted Friday 1st August 2008 21:01 GMT
Assault is when you threaten to harm another person. Battery is when you actually do it. It's very old law and nothing to do with free speech on the Internet. Just because people frequently get away with saying "I'm going to come over there and kick your head in" it doesn't mean that it's legal to do so. All the threatened person has to do is complain to the police.
Posted Sunday 3rd August 2008 19:18 GMT
> How stupid?
Well completely stupid.
As any sane racist knows black people don't feed their kids on baby food, they either eat them or cover them in flies and leave them out in the sun to die.
Posted Monday 4th August 2008 08:36 GMT
It really is about time the legal authorities took threats made to groups and individuals over the Internet more seriously - especially in the UK.
It's assault, harassment, abuse - the sooner some of these anonymous gutless wonders get a copper knocking at their door and making them wet their pants, the better...
A black helicopter, because they should be good for this sort of thing.
Sign up, sign up for The Register's weekly IT security newsletter - click here