WoW Gamer Earns Federal Investigation Achievement 167
barnyjr writes "A teenager could face federal charges after investigators say he made online threats to kill Americans on a plane from Indianapolis to Chicago. According to investigators, a monitor of the online interactive game World of Warcraft saw the alleged threats in an on-line chat and called Johnson County authorities. She told investigators the chatter didn't seem like a game."
I'm not sure who's crazier, this guy or the guy who just became the first World of Warcraft player to rack up 10,000 achievement points.
Had to read the whole damn thing! (Score:5, Informative)
Took careful reading to figure out the teenager did not make the threat while he was on the plane.
"a monitor of the online interactive game" saw words go buy in the chat log.
Re:No second chances... (Score:1, Informative)
Well yes, there's overreaction, but reading TFA this wasn't hastily said or written. Obviously not a terrorist, but:
According to the report, the teen told investigators he'd heard if you make threats online against a plane, the police would show up at your doorstep. The teen told investigators he was only testing that theory.
Yeah right, I was only testing a theory about yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. And at 18, he should know better.
Re:No second chances... (Score:2, Informative)
Did you read the whole article? He wasn't just joking around or taken out of context. He WANTED the FBI to come to test some theory of "if you make threats online against a plane, the police would show up at your doorstep.". Before he even admitted to doing it, he lied and said his computer was hacked. This kid isn't right in the head if he thinks making threats against innocent people, regardless if it's legitimate or not, is acceptable.
Re:With what? (Score:3, Informative)
"Orly" also happens to be an airport in France. THIS IS NO ACCIDENT SIR.
Re:Watch Your Trash Talk! (Score:5, Informative)
Your post doesn't make sense. Did you even *browse* TFA? Kid's 18 years old, first of all, that's not a kid. That's an adult, it's reported as a kid because it's more SHOCKING! if the police are wasting time over a kid than a legal adult. SPIN!
Don't forget there's been several cases recently where postings were made on the internet shortly before somebody like this kid DID go on a killing spree. I'm sure you remember that right? There is precedent for people boasting about serious crimes that will result in loss of life in their chosen favorite online hang-out before the fact. The kid also stated that he had heard making a threat like that would get the cops at your door and wanted to test it, so I'm going to guess he said a bit more than "I'M GONNA BLOW UP A PLANE LOLZ".
I completely fail to see how you could think that if he was a terrorist that the response was idiotic. What would YOU have done? Sent somebody to observe him, when the threat was he would be blowing up a plane the NEXT MORNING? I'm sorry? Fact of the matter is, he singled out a specific plane and a specific time, and that crosses the threshold from throw-away threat in to actual threat. This is no different than making a posting somewhere that in the morning you're going to shoot up your school (hai2u 4chan), or walking through a mall and being overheard telling somebody that you're going to blow up the library at XYZ address first thing Monday morning.
Stop acting like this kid's been mistreated. He deserves what he gets for acting a fool. He's not a kid, he's a god damned adult, he should know better than to do something like this.
Re:No second chances... (Score:2, Informative)
If this is true, I am absolutely appalled. I would like to think that there would be some sort of legal recourse for your friend -- did he try contacting the ACLU or any similar organizations? His civil liberties were unquestionably violated and he absolutely deserves restitution for the harm done to him. From the details provided I am not sure if his case would stand up in court, but if the teacher slandered him like that in front of the class, I think he could potentially have a case (if the issue were framed properly).
Has to be credible (Score:3, Informative)
For example if they threatened to kill Obama at a certain time and place, and Obama was indeed going to be at that place, and they were also likely to be in that place too, I'm sure they'd get investigated and possibly arrested too.
To anyone in the USA who doesn't believe me, try it: publicly post a specific threat to kill Obama some place where he WILL be, and then for bonus points, make plans to fly/travel to that spot some days before. But don't complain about me if you get arrested or worse. I'll just laugh at you when the relevant slashdot story appears.
If this nut was in Hawaii, and said he'd blow up the Indiana-Chicago flight, I suspect the FBI wouldn't have bothered about it (and just investigated him later on if the plane actually did blow up). But he was living close enough to the relevant airport (maybe 25-30 minutes away?). So the FBI certainly should investigate him.
Re:Watch Your Trash Talk! (Score:3, Informative)
The example is a specific rebuttal to the GP's assertion that we should let airlines handle their own security. I'm not dismissing libertarianism only on the one example, I'm dismissing it based on the general principle I laid out. I could offer dozens of examples to support this, for instance, particualrly timely are Liehman/AIG, Bernie Madoff, and countrywide financial.
Socialized risk and privitized reward is the worst of all worlds. And since some risk is always going to be socialized, since the individuals will be unable to fully account for their actions even after we level our most sever punishmets (see Bernie Madoff again) some level of regulation is absolutely essential. This is true in enviornmental cases (superfund), economic cases (glass-steagall), and security cases (airlines).
I am in no way requiring that we "throw out the constitution." I'm making the case that some level of security at airports is necessary. If you find the airport search to be "unreasonable," you're free to find alternate travel arrangements. That is not to say that any measure is acceptable. We're seeing some pushback on millimeter wave technology, and one can hope that someday the TSA will get their head out of their asses and stop making me take off my shoes and give up my cologne. But even if those measures are frustrating and useless, they are not unconstitutional.
Re:Watch Your Trash Talk! (Score:3, Informative)
AIG was selling insurance. Insurance is no substitute for regulation because it is at least as easy to game as the system you're insuring.
No one is capable of insuring against the next 9/11, the next sub-prime mortgage crisis, or the next dot-com bust.
See also: cost accounting and risk analysis of nuclear power.