> But they should face consequences if they were irresponsible, regardless of intention. Intention is important. If their intention is to highlight that a pro

> But they should face consequences if they were irresponsible, regardless of intention. Intention is important. If their intention is to highlight that a problem exists, then sure. They should be forced to participate in resolution (at the very minimum). As for liability? No, that definitely belongs on the owners of the insecure devices. If their intention is to show to "the bad guys" where the spots are vulnerable? Then yes, they are partly culpable. Again, being a good samaritan (showing that a problem exists) should NOT make you liable for the problems that already existed. > you also should wait for as long as you reasonably can That word, "reasonably", is loaded. I think waiting a couple of months is perfectly reasonable when being stonewalled by other parties, especially the owner. > that means waiting more than 2 months over a holiday season Yup, sure, because thieves definitely don't operate during holiday season. And please ask Russia and the US to hold off on their nuclear war. It's called Nuclear Winter, but that doesn't mean it has to happen during Winter, right? > This is fucking chilling. The problem existed before the announcement was made. You think it was chilling before? Just imagine that nobody who was capable of fixing it didn't know about the problem. So it could be abused without anyone being the wiser. That is fucking chilling. It's chilling that people would be more upset about the announcement and less upset about the apartment building owners not fixing the problem in the first place. That is fucking chilling.