3 ms·
Your 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
by mannykannot 4y ago
Your 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'.