▲ 69 ▼ Former Bungie, Pokémon Lawyer Explains How They Caught Leakers (www.bloomberg.com) submitted 2 years ago by simple@lemm.ee to c/games@lemmy.world 16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 19 points 2 years ago (2 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". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] catloaf@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago Really as soon as a lawyer is calling you is when you should stop talking and get your own lawyer. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Donut@leminal.space 4 points 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bezier@suppo.fi 11 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago Really as soon as a lawyer is calling you is when you should stop talking and get your own lawyer. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Donut@leminal.space 4 points 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bezier@suppo.fi 11 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bezier@suppo.fi 11 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent