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] 11 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.