5 ms·
It is not extortion unless a threat is being made, and you cannot manufacture a threat against yourself by claiming that the author might conceivably make a thr
by mannykannot 4y ago
It is not extortion unless a threat is being made, and you cannot manufacture a threat against yourself by claiming that the author might conceivably make a threat on the basis of these facts, particularly when you have also said that these facts raise no concerns.
There is no credible threat here. In addition to the above points, if attacks were made by exploiting these facts, the author, having raised the issue in the first place, would become a person of interest in any investigation.
- jameshart 4y ago“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client did not threaten anyone! His accusers are on record as saying he merely told them that they had a, quote, ‘nice little restaurant’, and that it would be a ‘shame if it caught fire’. These are not threats, but simply facts.”
- mannykannot 4y agoSigh... this is why I wrote "credible threat". There is no credible threat here.
- ajross 4y agoHe literally compromised live systems. You're using "credible" in the sense that you take him at his word that he won't do anything bad. That's exactly the wrong party to be playing trust in!
- mannykannot 4y agoYour response here has failed to address any of the points I made in my original reply. You have not identified any threat being made, without which there is no extortion - and as Google does not regard this situation as being a vulnerability, it is going to be difficult for you to identify a credible threat that could be used to extort something from them. Notice that you are also taking the author at his word when you say he literally compromised live systems. To turn this into a case of extortion, you would have to go beyond that and invent a number of things that have not been said - and some highly implausible things at that, given the very public way in which this supposed extortion is being conducted.
- ajross 4y ago> Notice that you are also taking the author at his word when you say he literally compromised live systems. Technically true. If this happened as described, it's criminal behavior. If he's lying, it's maybe not. FWIW: explicit threats are not and never have been a requirement for prosecuting extortion crimes. I'm not sure where you are getting that.
- mannykannot 4y agoThis is just more non-sequiturs, with which you attempt to distract from the gaping hole in your position. You have still not shown any hint of any plausible threat, without which, it is not even close to, as you put it, "100% isomorphic to extortion" - in fact, you have not presented one iota of evidence of extortion, and evidence is a requirement for for prosecuting extortion crimes. And for your information, 'explicit' is not a synonym of 'credible'.