Griefers deface epilepsy message-board with seizure-inducing animations

Discuss

54 Responses to “Griefers deface epilepsy message-board with seizure-inducing animations”

  1. loci says:

    ww qt n vrrctn t wht hppns n dly bss ll vr th ntrnts..
    “4chn” “mg th nns!!” clm dwn ffs.

    jst sm kd/kdlt hvng thr “llz”

    jst lk th ‘pppy thrwn frm th clff’ vd wld hv bn pstd n dg lvr frms.
    jst lk th ‘cgd ct brnt lv’ ws pstd n ct lvr frms, “trggrng” phts pstd n slf hrm frms…tc, tc.

    frms r sch n sy trgt…nd bg ywn fr m

  2. Anonymous says:

    DARUE: Google rgb.swf

  3. Anonymous says:

    My daughter is photosensitive. Which doesn’t mean that flashing jarring lights always trigger a seizure; on the contrary, they rarely do. But if she is tired or ill or the gods are in a bad mood, they do. Then she falls over, possibly injures herself, possible loses bladder control and humiliates herself, and in any case is bleary and confused for the rest of the day.

    I don’t forbid her surfing the net; most sites are actually don’t fail the Harding FPA Test, and she has the wits to look away when she needs to (light-triggered seizures do not necessarily happen instantaneously). As far as I can tell, she has only ever had one seizure at the computer, and that may not have been triggered by the web page she was looking at. So I’m not going to restrict her internet use.

    That being said, it doesn’t matter how dangerous the stunt was, it was dangerous and evil in intent. My daughter has looked in on that board from time to time, it could have happened to her. So I regard it as pretty much being the equivalent of launching an assault on my child. I would like to be left alone with the twisted fuck that did this for just five minutes (though a couple of hours would be even better).

    Targeting the handicapped for your own amusement is just plain sick. I don’t care if it was Anonymous or Tom Cruise’s pals, in the unlikely event they get caught I hope the book gets thrown at them really really hard.

  4. Anonymous says:

    From 7Chan:

    ATTENTION: Newcomers from Wired, Digg, Engadget, Slashdot, etc. by OverlordXenu – 3/29/08 @ 7:46PM PDT#

    Hello, and welcome to our treehouse.

    I would just like to discuss this nasty business about a terrible raid on a forum for the poor people who suffer from epilepsy. What happened there was terrible, and we feel deeply sorry for those affected.

    Users of this site did not actually attack those individuals. The Church of Scientology posted numerous threads across many *chan sites, and then informed people that Anonymous had been attacking victims of epilepsy. They did this under their “fair game” policy, to ruin the public opinion of Anonymous, to lessen the effect of their lawful protests against their virulent organization.

    I must say, it is disgusting that the CoS is willing to drag innocent people down with them, in an attempt to save themselves. How could anyone be a willing participant in their terrible organization?

    Sadly, none of our staff were online at the time of the thread’s posting, so we were unable to take it down.

    We are truly and deeply sorry for what happened to these innocent people,
    Thank you for your time spent reading this apology,
    The Administration and Staff of 7chan.org

    Feel free to email us at the above address or address us on our IRC server, and we will be happy to address any of your concerns regarding this terrible incident.

  5. jbreezy says:

    Yeah “LOCI” sorry man but you are an idiot. People getting upset from messed up cat pictures is nothing like seizure inducing animations. I have epilepsy and when I have seizures, I fall down without control, sometimes i just get bruised or scratched, sometimes I break something, like my nose. It’s not funny, its really messed up. Not everyone with epilepsy is photo sensitive fortunately.

    You allergic to anything Loci? Lemme get my lolz and sneak it into your next meal, no biggy?

    I would like to find out who did this and tase them into a seizure.

  6. RJ says:

    From what I know of Anonymous, they aren’t really of the mindset to do things like this. They seem to be mostly a bunch from the 18-35 demographic with an intense dislike of the Church of Scientology.

    If they were to hack anyone, my guess would be they’d hit the Scientologists. Attacking a bunch of epileptics doesn’t even make sense. All it takes is going to 4chan and looking at /b/ to see what they’re all talking about. It’s not like they’re the most secretive group of people.

    Some people suspect Church members of launching the attack with the intent of blaming Anonymous. While it’s impossible to say for sure, as I write this, I would offer that this is a distinct possibility.

  7. jim.cowling says:

    I’m both apalled by the childishness and petty vandal mindset that would drive someone to do this, and impressed by what is a clever brainhack.

    Use your powers for good, kids. Trust me, there’s a better chance of you getting laid and a lower chance of you getting asskicked.

  8. vsync says:

    “Everyone who logged on, it affected to some extent, whether by causing headaches or seizures,” says Browen Mead, a 24-year-old epilepsy patient in Maine who says she suffered a daylong migraine after examining several of the offending posts. She’d lingered too long on the pages trying to determine who was responsible.

    Many lulz indeed. She already knew the posts were on there and she still loaded the page and stared at the graphics? Sounds like attention whoring to me.

    Really, view the source, look at the backend database directly, view the actual page with colors/fonts/graphics/scripting disabled, or at the very least have someone that’s not epileptic do the staring at it.

    And why wasn’t her first priority disabling viewing of the forums by others, and then investigating?

    Sheesh.

  9. Anonymous says:

    RJ:

    “Anonymous” isn’t a group of anti-Scientology do-gooders; they’re an offshoot of Something Awful goons. They’re 4chan, 7chan, and those folks. They “raid” other groups, ranging from online games to the CoS. They do things for the lulz.

  10. Protobot says:

    Attacking an epilepsy board is completely not funny. At all. But the article mentions that the most likely suspect is the group “Anonymous”. More likely it was the church of Scientology.

    Remember the post about anonymous protesting the church of Scientology?(http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/10/anonymous-vs-sciento.html) One of the points they brought up was the “Fair Game” policy, which states that “Suppressive Persons” can be “lied to, tricked or destroyed” (actual policy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29)

    I don’t think there has there been a post on the usual anonymous sites about attacking epilepsy suffers. I can’t say that with a 100% certainty, because anonymous has no central website/archive. But invading a website is usually a bigger deal than this. It usually shows up on the site at least once. When the same news article you posted finally did show up on the site, the users were split about weather it was hilarious or evil. But nobody claimed responsibility, and there were no post-raid victory threads that I saw. And 7chan denies any involvement.(http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/7chan-accuses-cult-of-scientology-of-attacking-epilepsy-forum/)

    With anonymous, you can never really know, since there are so many different channels of communication. However, considering this makes for really bad PR in a time when anonymous is looking for support, combined with the fact that there seems to be no trace of “Haha, we did it!” or anything of that nature leads me to believe that this is, in fact, a sneaky move by Scientology to undermine public opinion of the group.

    “Hey, did you know about the protesters in Boston? They were protesting Scientology!”
    “Yeah, but the same guys attacked an epilepsy board with flashing images”

    And yes, this IS something Scientology would do.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_cult

    http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/7chan-accuses-cult-of-scientology-of-attacking-epilepsy-forum/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet

  11. Fall says:

    While I hate to be an internet rumor monger, it looks like some clarification is needed on these Anonymous folks, as this type of abuse is most certainly something they’d do.

    Most people (myself included) only knew of Anonymous due to their recent public war on Scientology, but they’ve been around for a while, and their goals aren’t noble. Anonymous is an offshoot group based around the 4chan (and similar) forums and exist to “grief”. Griefers take enjoyment in annoying others and causing problems, generally harassing hoping to get a response. Given Scientology’s track-record for reacting, it’s an ideal target for Anonymous.

    Anonymous has claimed they set their sights on Scientology to fight back against copyright abuse and the trampling freedom of speech, but the reality of their new-found interest in Scientology is that the church is an easy target and is known to take direct action against any dissenters.

    Like most people outside of the “church”, I’m not a fan of Scientology, but these Anonymous kids aren’t fighting the good fight. They pursue entertainment at the expense of others.

  12. Anonymous says:

    @ #53 and anyone else who cares to read this:

    /b/tard here. Anonymous didn’t have anything to do with these attacks. 4chan/7chan etc. The whole point of those boards is that you can post ANONYMOUSLY. So whether it was the Co$ or not, someone anonymously posted this filth.

    Anonymous DOES attack ridiculous things for “lulz” – for instance raiding Omegle.com and the like, but its all harmless. The only real attacks they wage are against Co$ and further filth. (AT&T notwithstanding – that was simply a misunderstanding).

    The Anonymous poster above who claims “its all there in black and white.” Seriously? Have you ever heard a more weasely statement? Come on now. Yeah, he came on here to tell everyone how its laid out in black and white that HIS group did it and HE was involved?? Right, champ. You should practice moar lying. For all of the ridiculous schemes Anonymous pulls, the majority of us are actually quite intellegent. We protect nihilism on the internets. We don’t attack epileptic people for no fucking reason.

    As for #53 – you better hop back on the e-meter, buddy. Because “The Way to Happiness” isn’t through spreading lies on blogs.

  13. Wickedashtray says:

    sorry but I seriously doubt 4chan & Anon had anything to do with this. They are quite internet savvy and would have covered their tracks quite well. Also, shit like this simply isn’t part of their MO. Now, an organization well known for brutally putting down criticism of their goals would be far more suspect as they could easily do something like this to draw attention away from themselves and towards 4chan/anon by making them look like the bad guys. Who could it be?

  14. jtf says:

    @ #4, it is true that “Anonymous” as a group was known before its Scientology protests for its griefing exploits, such as the compromising of thousands of myspace accounts.

    However, if you doubt their intentions with regards to Scientology, then instead of making claims try to refute their reasons directly on their organizing sites. They’re wikis, just go and read. Just google “Project Chanology” and you’ll find it. Not one of the thousands of people getting their information from that site have changed the message. The scope, breadth, and intent of the material portrayed on that site can’t all be fake. I think the battle against Scientology has fundamentally changed Anonymous – they went from their traditional DDoS attacks to open, legal, peaceful protests.

    It’s more than likely an unrelated group (or Scientologists, I wouldn’t put it past them) put up the epilepsy-inducing pictures.

  15. acb says:

    My first thought was that it’s probably a CO$ black-op to implicate Anonymous. But looking at Anonymous’ history of griefing people (singling out victims and coordinating people across the world to send credible death/rape threats to them), it looks a lot murkier than that.

    What if the rabbit hole goes deeper, and getting Anonymous to start an anti-Scientology protest, and encouraging that to become, in the eyes of the public, the face of opposition to Scientology, was actually engineered by the CO$ as a way of discrediting their critics, getting the moral high ground and undoing some of the damage to their image that Tom “the Superclam” Cruise’s increasingly bizarre behaviour has wrought? If so, they timed it well, allowing the protests to get a lot of publicity, until Anonymous became synonymous with anti-Scientology, and then waiting for something like this to happen.

  16. Robotech_Master says:

    I don’t think there’s really any way to know whether it is “Anonymous” or not. I would be inclined to be naturally and immediately suspicious of the Co$ because of what I’ve heard about them—especially given the apparent lack of organizing/bragging posts on Anon’s usual hangouts. On the other hand, I gather that there isn’t an actual cohesive organization of “Anonymous,” so it’s possible that even if the majority of them didn’t have anything to do with it, a few bad apples in their bunch could have pulled it.

  17. AnnoyedCapitalist says:

    Can someone explain to me how epileptics protect themselves in general on the internet? It sounds like any significant BLINK-tagged text or animated image could pose a threat if the attack described above was that easy. God forbid any of them visit MySpace.

  18. Takuan says:

    Loci: why are you here?

  19. Protobot says:

    @#4

    They are indeed trying to get a reaction out of Scientology. They state this about as openly as possible. They love that they can’t be sued if they’re anonymous. It is, for many, a never-ending stream of hilarity.

    However-
    To say that’s their only motivation is wrong. They’re also doing this because they actually believe in their cause. Nobody stands around for 8 hours on a freezing February day to get a reaction. There’s talk of 12 months of operations, with very specific goals, such as revoking tax-exempt status in the US.

    I wouldn’t put it past Anonymous to attack an epilepsy site. It is something that a few members would definitely do. I just don’t think it was them this time.

  20. chromal says:

    Way to blame the victim, Vsync. You from Anonymous yourself?

  21. November says:

    Anyone who suspects the kids who hang out on chan boards are above this and somehow it was a Scientology plot must be really new to the ‘lulz’ thing. You have a collection of young adults who all encourage and egg each other on to abuse others and really no one ever says ‘stop’ or ‘no’ until well after the fact, where they then blame a ‘few people’ for ‘ruining it for everyone else’. Except this is a cycle that repeats again and again and has all the way back to the SomethingAwful forums and similar sites. No matter how you spin it, these sites all pretty much are the same demographic.

    I distinctly remember the two weeks in 2002 that members of the SomethingAwful website spent prank calling a relay center for the deaf that I worked at briefly. (You might recall that Nigerian scammers have a penchant for these centers as well). Beyond their desire to make the operators scream catchphrases and sexually harass the female operators, they also managed to make several people quit. This did not stop until Lowtax, the owner of SomethingAwful, was pretty much begged to stop it by several of the operators working there. Meanwhile several forum admins, moderators, etc. were all participating in this.

    Look up the term ‘An hero’ and other such ‘entertainment’. Really, it’s internet nihilism at its finest from the ‘lulz’ crowd. There was a time years ago where I tried to defend that sort of humor and antics, but I’ve long since given up. Not having to hear the same stale catchphrases for years is an added bonus.

    It’s one thing to be against Scientology, but you really shouldn’t assume the enemy of your enemy are your friends. Collectively, most of these folks are already seemingly bored with their anti-CoS game, anyway. For all those who discovered the fight against Scientology with these recent antics, my suggestion to you is perhaps to organize elsewhere and disassociate yourselves away from a culture with a very long, ugly track record. It makes you look like less of an ass when you don’t have to defend yourself against trying to harm epileptics.

  22. Sundog says:

    Of course, this is reprehensible behaviour. But I’m curious – is this the first time a Langford hack has been seen in the wild? And could it be modified to affect non-epileptics?

  23. Anonymous says:

    As someone who as involved in the attacks and who witnessed the origins of the said attacks, I can tell you, they originated from 7chan. 7chan is associated with Anonymous to an extent. I saw the forum where the attacks originated from before it was deleted, telling the members of 7chan to attack the Epilepsy community. It really isn’t up to speculation when it’s all there in black and white folks.

  24. DaedalusAloft says:

    Yes, anonymous existed for at least several years in its current incarnation before turning its attention to Scientology. If you know anonymous as that “anti-Scientology group”, you do not really know anon.

    It’s a loose collection of more-or-less anonymous people of various backgrounds and bents that serves, at least in part intentionally, as one of the best examples of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory that we have.

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

    Characterizing anon is a task fraught with peril (I’m looking at you, Fox News), but griefing does figure prominently in anon’s collective headspace and history, especially if it can be done in relative anonymity from the comfort of one’s own chair. Anon regularly raids social networking sites, Habbo Hotel being the canonical example, and also harasses cam-girls on a regular basis. Attacks occasionally do extend to the real world, for example spamming phone lines like #11 November describes.

    Anon is a collection of different people with different motives, it’s not necessarily all good or all evil. Some anons bait online predators in child-oriented chat rooms in order to fish for their personal information and turn it over to authorities, or to scare them away from the chat rooms. Other anons bait online predators because the predators are easy targets for griefing, lead them on for a while as prettygirl13 and then hit them with “This is the FBI, this chat has been recorded…”, solely for the lulz of freaking out the predator. Sometimes anon helps put child predators in jail, sometimes anon himself posts child pornography (briefly, before it gets pulled and the IP gets banned).

    So it may be a bit naive to say “Anon would NEVER…” or “Anon has changed his ways, he’s good now.” In my (limited) experience, the attack on epileptics would be above-average evil for anon, more evil than anything I’ve personally witnessed while lurking. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that it was anon. I wouldn’t completely rule out the CoS theory, either, from what I’ve heard about them. I hope whoever did it gets nailed for it. I’m afraid we may never know for sure, depends on how the attack was executed and what logs are available, or maybe whether the perp ever develops a conscience.

  25. pyster says:

    What evidence is there that anonymous, or a member of it, was involved?

    The internet is full of flashing colours and such. Mayhem.net is enuf to give most anyone a seizure. Is there no software available that could detect these events and filter them? Seems like a handy tool for someone with this vulnerability. No? Well here is a programmers chance for fame, fortune and glory.

    As a fan of entropy, I can appreciate griefing in all its forms. I was amused by the trench coat mafia, asa coon, the patriot act, and all the things one reads on the rotten dailies. Doesnt mean I dont also find these acts completely despicable. I’m just entertained by the train wreck that is humanity at large.

  26. Ceronomus says:

    Whomever is responsible should be charged with at LEAST criminal mischief. However, the likelihood of that ever happening is zero. People argue that they should be able to be anonymous on the web, then something like this happens to point out why law enforcement would prefer not.

  27. Agent 86 says:

    Not to say anything bad about the epileptics, but they have horrible taste in tech support. Allowing anything other than pure text on a Bulletin Board for people who can not handle the majority of graphics and videos… not the smartest thing! I would be tempted to lock it down to only one font, only one color.

    Really, I hope they have a new admin by the end of the week!

    PS: Is anyone from anon actually taking credit for this? They are usually proud of their efforts: if it is IS anon – and not Co$ – I would expect them to admit.

  28. ludditemike says:

    Copypastad from another poster on a board I frequent:

    If one is epileptic, with a history of either pattern or light trigger petit mal seizures, the only sensible thing that need be done to insure safe browsing, is to edit your browsers settings (about:config in the address bar for Firefox) and set the image.animation_mode to a value of once. This will prevent the image from cycling, which is the necessary mechanism by which the malicious triggering can occur. This is really the responsibility of the person with the seizure disorder, not every web site in creation. I found it quite shocking to peruse the epileptic support site & find that nowhere did they have this extremely simple, but most effective safeguard posted.

    Refuse to be a victim, empower yourself with knowledge & frustrate the cellar-dwelling cretins known as “griefers”.

  29. heresiarch514 says:

    Jim Cowling @ 2:

    I’m both apalled by the childishness and petty vandal mindset that would drive someone to do this, and impressed by what is a clever brainhack.

    I’m not impressed at their “clever” brainhack. It’s no more a clever brainhack then kicking someone in the balls is a clever physiology hack. How much cleverness does it take to target photo-sensitive epileptics with flashing lights? If they figured out a way to trigger epilepsy in non-photo-sensitive people, now that would be both appalling and clever. This is just appalling and cruel.

  30. Avram says:

    Nerdkiller, the article quotes people who had reactions. You don’t even have to follow the link, just look at the section Cory quoted.

  31. cajunfj40 says:

    Oh my, this is interesting. Defacing a website in such a way that actual, measurable, physical harm is the direct result. Not merely inciting to, nor egging someone on, nor starting a chain of events, but directly causing harm.

    IMHO (and, of course, IANAL), this is assault (showing known trigger images) and battery (causing seizures). That it occurred via the internet is beside the point for those who were affected, but the chosen vector/weapon is likely to get most of the attention.

    It will be very interesting to see how this is treated in court if a) charges are filed and b) those responsible are caught. It also depends on whether the case is civil or criminal – if assault and battery, I would guess criminal.

    BTW, article comments note that this isn’t the first such attack, one occurred in November:
    http://www.pr.com/press-release/60959

    While it reminds me of the attack in “Snow Crash”, and I, too, am curious about “brainhacks”, I don’t find this particular application either cool or funny. Thinking for a bit, I’m not sure what application would be both cool and funny to me. To be cool, it would at least have to effect non-epileptics. To be funny, it would at least have to “do no real harm”. I’ll leave it at that for now, ’tis a complicated subject.

    I hope we’ll see updates on this, if only to read that the affected sites/users have better filters/security.

    later,
    -cajun

  32. Anonymous says:

    There is a schism going on right now between the chans, 420chan has declared war on 711chan and Wisebeardman for being “Moralfags” and says they aren’t truely anonymous anymore.

    It’s worth keeping an eye on, because whenever the group pushes outward for some type of meaning, it defeats the purpose of being meaningless.

  33. Benjamin says:

    Conspiracy theories aside, as they should be, it would simply appear there needs to be some good-guy hackers out there willing to safeguard websites. This anon and scientology talk is so ridiculous… I bet we’re talking about one bored, probably pre-pubescent hacker here.

    I just thought of another mindhack that would be funny and do no real harm:
    Hack a PMS forum with the Koolaid man crashing through. OH YEAAAAAAAAH!!!!

  34. Tarmle says:

    The Opera browser provides an option to disable GIF and SVG animations:

    Tool->Prefereces…->Advanced->Content->Uncheck Enable GIF/SVG animation.

    Java, JavaScript and plug-ins can be disabled at the same dialogue, though this will start to degrade the browsing experience if used globally. Fortunately Opera also provides these options for individual sites:

    Tools->Quick preferences->Edit site preferences…->Content

  35. glugenwog says:

    Xenu himself commanded Tom Cruise to do it.

  36. Hargrimm says:

    I can confirm that this was organized through 4chan’s /b/, although I’m not sure it was marketed as an action of ‘Anonymous.’ I just saw the post of some asshole who said ‘let’s go post flashing gifs on epileptic forums’ (paraphrased, obviously).

  37. Jamie Sue says:

    @9 Depends on the epileptic. Personally, I’m not that sensitive to little bits of moving graphics. However, there are a few of those “YOU’VE WON!!!!!!!!!!!” banners that give me headaches and I did run into a similar jack ass who posted a link to seizurerobots.com as a link to an article about epilepsy (I still remember the url after all these years.) That one did cause me to freeze up for a while. People who do have photosensitive epilepsy have varying degrees of sensitivity and sometimes it even varies day to day. If I’ve had a good night sleep and am not under a lot of stress not much will bother me. If I’m exhausted and have a cold or fever, then I have to avoid fluorescent lights, ceiling fans, and pretty much the rest of the galaxy.

    Regardless… whoever did it… is a dick. And maybe they aren’t intentionally malicious… but I still hope they suffer from some kind of painful muscle spasms in the near future.

    And yes, the forum master should have been more careful of her viewers. She was irresponsible as well.

    And for those trying to get their LOLZ on… go scare people with heart problems instead. Douchebags.

  38. Takuan says:

    kudos to Ludditemike and Tarmle, you earn the Medal of Trying to Make Things Better. I hope you passed your knowledge directly on to to the epilepsy web sites.

    I sincerely hope the same effort is made by law enforcement to track down the authors of this assault as would be made for any senseless attack on the street.

    If they are children, they deserve spankings and education. If adults, well, I’m sure there is a way to induce epilepsy by lesioning the brain.

  39. WA says:

    The fundamental tenet of Anonymous is that it has no leadership, no direction, and no distinct form. Describing it as a single group of individuals with similar motivations and histories is extremely inaccurate, especially at a time when the idea has expanded far beyond the *chans.

    For example, many of the people now identifying as part of Anonymous had nothing to do with griefing or even the *chans, but were interested in actions against Scientology, and enticed by the idea of the group, which has proven, so far, at least somewhat effective in countering the usual tactics of the CoS. This has apparently led to at least one case where a lawyer in the UK, who apparently became involved due to the Scientology protests, is now suing the Church for libel over the terrorism accusations they have made against him (directly) due to associating him with the old Anonymous actions.

    Also, many of the *channers involved seem extremely concerned about the ethics of the things they do. It’s quite possible that the Scientology raid brought together people who wanted the attention and amusement (lulz), but also the ability to derive those things from some morally justifiable enterprise, as they are doing now. Those who aren’t interested in the latter probably aren’t involved, considering the significant threat of major retaliation (especially in the aftermath of the March protests), and the far lengthier preparations and discussions involved.

    On the other hand, having no direction, it is very easy for different groups of people to call themselves Anonymous. It’s quite probable that the people who did this have just as much right to call themselves Anonymous as the anti-Scientology Anonymous, despite being completely different people. Anonymous can no longer be linked solely to the *chans, and I expect that we will soon have to start referring to two Anonymous groups: the one on the *chans, and the one against the Church of Scientology.

  40. MikePL says:

    Oh man. I’m one of the protesters against the Church of Scientology, and I really don’t understand how people could be blaming us for this thing. Anyone can be anonymous on-line, people need to take a look at the websites these griefers operate on. The people who run sites like 7chan are against our protests. Scientology is against its members taking medication to stop them from getting seizures, for example, Tory “Magoo” Christman – http://www.entheta.net/archive/personal_story/tory/affidavit.html

    Jocelyn Dorfmann died from an epileptic seizure in Scientology care in France – http://www.whyaretheydead.net/others/Jocelyne_Dorfmann_34.html

    Heribert Pfaff died from an epileptic seizure in a Scientology hotel in Clearwater – http://www.whyaretheydead.net/room758.html

    James Stewart committed suicide after CoS put in him in a Condition of Doubt for having epileptic seizures in public – http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/kult-epelep.htm

  41. malevolentjelly says:

    I hate to break this to all your fear mongerers, but 4chan is not necessarily Anonymous or vice versa. I believe they’re actually referring to a separate sort of anonymous in both cases. Although both have “anonymous” folk, you have to remember that the word anonymous implies anonymity- which is exactly what you need if you go against the CoS.

    Although these two groups may share members, I am fairly certain Anonymous is more of an abstract idea than an organized group, imploring people to don masks and rise against the evil CoS.

    Because /b/ is full of anonymous posters, the news media put 2 and two together and found a perfectly sinister and difficult to understand group of internet anime kids to pin the actions of Anonymous on.

    In reality, a lot of people hate Scientology. Well, more specifically- almost everyone who is not scientologist themselves see what’s wrong with it- the proper Anonymous is more of a diffused movement to give people an excuse to organize against them. So why doesn’t anyone answer for Anonymous proper? It’s both a small group and everyone, simple as that.

  42. darue says:

    mmm… whr cn fnd sm f ths grphcs?

  43. nerdkiller says:

    It’s very rare for strobes to trigger seizures, it’s up there with tongue swallowing and spoons. I carry a little card in my wallet for when I feel it coming explaining to the concerned public to “keep their stupid fingers and spoons out of my mouth”. Most of us epileptics don’t even get a trigger diagnosis from our neurologists. Kids will be kids, I doubt anyone on that site had a reaction. I’m not condoning anything, I’m just not sure it’s post worthy.

  44. Takuan says:

    it’s the thought that counts. Deliberate malice needs to be hit between the eyes with a ballpeen hammer. Let them get away with this and next it will be hacking hospital systems to see who can kill the most patients through med screw-ups etc.

    It is assault.

  45. Cowicide says:

    Scientology = LOSERS
    Anonymous = LOSERS

    End of discussion.

  46. Elorin says:

    @Nerdkiller #23 – Rare as it may be for strobes to trigger seizures, on a website dedicated to epileptics it isn’t surprising that such an attack managed to hit it’s “target” audience (optic triggered epileptics). And if you read the linked article, at least 2 users of the sight specifically attested to migraines and seizures attributed to the attack.

  47. jgriffiths says:

    @31

    Though not her fault (and this is way more deplorable than just posting stuff to upset/annoy people) I do agree that it is quite irresponsible of the admins of an epilepsy board to be allowing images to be posted, it’s a simple yes/no tick-box in the control panel of every forum software I’ve seen. Especially if, as someone has posted above, this isn’t the first time such an attack has occurred.

    I wouldn’t expect the majority of epilepsy sufferers to have protected themselves from this, most people aren’t that computer-savvy, but you’d think someone running a forum would have enough experience.

    I agree with the people that have pointed out that the best proof that it isn’t related to the *chans is not that they’re ‘above’ that or anything, but that there aren’t any gloating victory threads related to it, as with every other major griefing.

  48. WeightedCompanionCube says:

    CoS trying to discredit Anonymous by attacking an unrelated epilepsy forum?

    That seems like a pretty vague way to go about targeting a group. Didn’t they go right for the throat by posting the personal info of suspected Anonymous members on Youtube? If you want to screw with someone, all you have to do is post their info in a visible place. The bottom feeders of the Internet don’t need an excuse to attack someone. They’ll happily do all kinds of dirty stuff for the hell of it when they get a phone number, email, or postal address.

    Which makes me think this was just a bunch of said bottom feeders riding on the coattails of Anonymous’s fame.

  49. jgriffiths says:

    @34

    Saw your post after I’d replied, you got a link?

  50. Ceronomus says:

    Here is the thing. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Church of Scientology *IS* behind this as a way of attacking Anonymous.

    ANYONE can be a member of Anonymous by saying that they are a member of Anonymous. So, if some Scientology hackers did do this and claim to be members of Anonymous, then BOTH Anonymous and Scientology are behind this.

    When you have an organization that anyone can be a member of, where people can pretty much do whatever they want, this was bound to happen sooner or later.

  51. jgriffiths says:

    If it is someone from the *chans then this is the best example of why Anonymous needs to find a way of distancing themselves from them – as from reading some of the Project Chanology related message boards the core of Anonymous (as in the most proactive people) seem to be pretty dedicated to the cause, I’d imagine that most of the channers purely in it for lulz have drifted away by now.

  52. Tenn says:

    I’m both apalled by the childishness and petty vandal mindset that would drive someone to do this, and impressed by what is a clever brainhack.

    My sentiments exactly. While the vigilante in me wants these griefers thrown in an old asylum and given electroshock treatments, the curious cat in me is impressed by the concept.

    Anon. does not just target Scientology. Anon targets all sorts of things; including bad artists (once saw an attack on a kid’s DeviantArt. Granted, the kid was a little pompous ass, but their attack definitely fell under harassment.) Anon. will target and destroy people who speak against them.

    All disapproval of their measures aside, I’ve seen some pretty cool things from them, but on a very hit and miss basis, and their intentions are always childish.

  53. Terry Karney says:

    cajun: IANAL, (but have “read the law” to borrow a phrase). It is probably not assault. It’s not battery.

    Generally assault requires that the assaulted feel threatened. If I put my hand on a knife, and think about attacking you; but never come to the point of drawing it, I’ve not committed assault.

    If I say I intend to slug you, and never cock my fist; I’ve not assaulted you.

    This is in a gray area, because harm was done. If I hit you from behind, I’ve committed both assault, and battery (the requirement for battery is that the attacker make physical contact. If I chuck a rock at you, that’s assault, but it’s not battery. If the rock is large enough it could be Assault with a Deadly Weapon (which will be true even if I don’t hit you. An empty firearm is ADW, because the weapon; if not the configuration, is lethal).

    The problem here is probably the question of intent. A guy who has his car rigged to make huge amounts of low-end noise (it can be fine music, but when all I can feel is the baseline, it’s noise), is guilty of nuisance, but probably not assault.

    If he comes and sits in front of my house, with the intent of discommoding me, then an assault charge might be viable.

  54. Belac says:

    Where did the idea that it was Anonymous come from? This looks to me like the work of anonymous instead–that is, a few bored asshats rather than a repeat-action flash mob.

Leave a Reply