When your classmates threaten you with felony charges

I don't understand why in both contracts and legal communication (particularly threatening one), there is little to no consequence for the writing party to get things right.

I've seen examples of an employee contract, with things like "if any piece of this contract is invalid it doesn't invalidate the rest of the contract". The employer is basically trying to enforce their rules (reasonable), but they have no negative consequences if what they write is not allowed. At most a court deems that piece invalid, but that's it. The onus is on the reader to know (which tends to be a much weaker party).

Same here. Why can a company send a threatening letter ("you'll go 20 years to federal prison for this!!"), when it's clearly false? Shouldn't there be an onus on the writer to ensure that what they write is reasonable? And if it's absurdly and provably wrong, shouldn't there be some negative consequences more than "oh, nevermind"?

Perhaps before killing someone with a comment, you should provide examples to back up your vitriol? The guidelines were reposted a mere four days ago...

The writing felt fine to me, if a bit terse.

I feel like this article reflects an overall positive change in the way disclosure is handled today. Back in the 90s this was the sort of thing every company did. Companies would threaten lawsuits, or disclosure in the first place seemed legally dubious. Discussions in forums / BBS's would be around if it was safe to disclose at all. Suggestions of anonymous email accounts and that sort of thing.

Sure you still get some of that today. An especially old fashioned company, or in this case naive college students but overall things have shifted quite dramatically in favor of disclosure. Dedicated middle men who protect security researcher's identities, Large enterprises encouraging and celebrating disclosure, six figure bug bounties, even the laws themselves have changed to be more friendly to security researchers.

I'm sure it was quite unpleasant to go through this for the author, but it's a nice reminder that situations like this are now somewhat rare as they used to be the norm (or worse).

IANAL, but:

1. threatening violence is explicitly a crime

2. at a higher level, threatening violence is a crime because the underlying act (committing violence) is also a crime. threatening to do a legal act is largely legal. it's not illegal to threaten reporting to the authorities, for instance.