My read was closer to what the article stated at the end -- the issue is that it is written for a tech geek audience when the real audience should have been jud

My read was closer to what the article stated at the end -- the issue is that it is written for a tech geek audience when the real audience should have been judges and lawyers. So being vague and flippant was why they were foolish, not in saying something at all. And that they should probably not have implied that they were going to break the law, which also seems foolish. Doesn't mean it isn't net positive, just means the details of how they did it were... maybe not the cleverest. But who knows, one person's opinion, etc.