Guy just seems like kind of a dick after reading the article.
“Do I not seem approachable?”
He says, after bragging about threatening a kid with federal crime for datamining a released game.
Most of these I’m perfectly fine with, leakers get banned, but what was that pokemon kid? The kid pulled a texture out of a public release and this guy goes threatening the parents for “federal crimes.” What the shit?
This guy is the kind of scumbag that gives lawyers bad names and… that is a REALLY REALLY high bar. His “do I not seem approachable” stance on investigating sexual harassment says it all. His focus is solely on damage control, nothing else.
That said: The way he tells it (and considering this was high profile, he read his notes before or even during the interview): He very specifically did not threaten the parents. They asked if it was hacking. He never said it was hacking but he DID say that hacking is a federal crime.
And this is why, much like cops, never talk to a lawyer without a lawyer present.
never said it was hacking but he DID say that hacking is a federal crime.
He didn’t threaten them directly. The parent asked and he could have just said no. But instead he starts talking about “federal crimes.” If that’s irrelevant, why even bring that up? That sounds like intentional misleading to me.
“do I not seem approachable” stance on investigating sexual harassment
The guy sounds real pleasant, but that was about leaking and not harassment.
What’s the definition of “hacking”? Because datamining could be as simple as using a hex editor or extracting compressed assets. Do those qualify as “hacking”? (Not even necessarily asking you, more just trying to make a point that this is an extremely broad term).
Wow, this guy has serious punchable face energy. It’s not even that interesting, the leakers he catches (or at least the only ones he talks about) are really dumb (one is a child who data mined!).
‘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.
“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”.
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
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.
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.
