3 ms·

Yes, "it would be a shame if something were to happen" is also not extortion, because you aren't actually saying you will visit misery upon them, only implying

Yes, "it would be a shame if something were to happen" is also not extortion, because you aren't actually saying you will visit misery upon them, only implying it. The mistake you are making is assuming the researcher wants literally nothing, or that the CEO can know they want literally nothing. I still have no idea what they actually wanted, and whether there was going to be some sort of value extraction.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
margalabargala 2y ago
I see you read and understood the researcher's emails as well as the CEO did, then...I'm not assuming anything, I'm repeating what was said. Are you suggesting that lacking understanding of something someone says, one's first reaction should be an asshole to that person, just in case they are trying to sell something?
- DangitBobby 2y ago
  No, I'm simply trying to say the researcher would have more pleasant interactions with the people they email if they helped the person understand what they _do_ want out of the interaction instead of just saying they aren't being scammed. If the researcher placed themselves in the shoes of the CEO, they could understand why the CEO responded that way. That's not the same thing as thinking the CEO _should_ have responded that way. I am also not letting the researcher off the hook for responding to the CEOs response the way they did.
  - margalabargala 2y ago
    The author did just that, though. They said they wanted to write up a post about the incident. I think both I and the author understand why the CEO responded as they did; it's because the CEO doesn't care about security, and when a security issue was raised, they viewed the reporter as a threat to the blanket of lies they wanted to use to brush the whole thing under the rug. In light of that, I think the author's response was appropriate. A lesser response would be letting the company off the hook.
    - DangitBobby 2y ago
      The CEO's reasons for not liking the situation are quite obvious, yes, they were caught with their pants down, it makes them look bad (the company was bad). I'm not advocating for letting them off the hook, I'm advocating for better communication. That's pretty much it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

margalabargala 2y ago

I see you read and understood the researcher's emails as well as the CEO did, then...I'm not assuming anything, I'm repeating what was said. Are you suggesting that lacking understanding of something someone says, one's first reaction should be an asshole to that person, just in case they are trying to sell something?

DangitBobby 2y ago
No, I'm simply trying to say the researcher would have more pleasant interactions with the people they email if they helped the person understand what they _do_ want out of the interaction instead of just saying they aren't being scammed. If the researcher placed themselves in the shoes of the CEO, they could understand why the CEO responded that way. That's not the same thing as thinking the CEO _should_ have responded that way. I am also not letting the researcher off the hook for responding to the CEOs response the way they did.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  The author did just that, though. They said they wanted to write up a post about the incident. I think both I and the author understand why the CEO responded as they did; it's because the CEO doesn't care about security, and when a security issue was raised, they viewed the reporter as a threat to the blanket of lies they wanted to use to brush the whole thing under the rug. In light of that, I think the author's response was appropriate. A lesser response would be letting the company off the hook.
  - DangitBobby 2y ago
    The CEO's reasons for not liking the situation are quite obvious, yes, they were caught with their pants down, it makes them look bad (the company was bad). I'm not advocating for letting them off the hook, I'm advocating for better communication. That's pretty much it.