Sorry but that's bullshit. What you've said is that the guy simply got caught and therefore this was not a case of responsible disclosure.
The letter doesn't say that. No other sources say that. You're the only one saying that.
The letter doesn't say that. No other sources say that. You're the only one saying that.
I never said that it was not a case of responsible disclosure. I simply don't know, the evidence at this point seems insufficient to support either conclusion.