‘So you’re saying he hacked your game.’ And I hear in the background: ‘I didn’t hack anything!’ I start describing it more technically. She says, ‘Is this a problem?’ I say, ‘Hacking software, that’s a federal crime, but I don’t want that to be the conversation. Why don’t we make it a conversation about the good and bad things he can do with a computer?’

To the people saying he threatened a kid, I think he did the exact opposite? He made them aware that technically it's a crime, to convey the severity, but also said he doesn't want that to be the conversation he's having with the parents.

To me that sounds like he didn't want to threaten with legal action, but the parents did need to be aware that it was a crime, technically speaking.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"It's a federal crime" : the implication is clear.

What was said after that was sophistry to make him sound better.

The moment he said "it's a federal crime", the response should be "then I guess we're done talking here".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The parent literally asked whether their kid was in trouble. Wouldn't it be disingenuous to not answer truthfully (at the caveat that it was actually the truth)?

I saw it more as a way to resolve it peacefully without getting to the stuff nobody likes

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

Wouldn't it be disingenuous to not answer truthfully (at the caveat that it was actually the truth)?

Well there's the problem. Doesn't seem that the kid did anything illegal, so the federal crime implication was a very disingenuous scare tactic.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

And he still didnt answer yes or no. His response, to immediately bring up that "hacking" is a federal crime, implied that the kid is in trouble, but then what he said after changed it to "well, the kid WOULD be in trouble, but if you do XYZ, maybe we can change that." That's a threat, plain and simple.