The win-at-any-cost mindset of modern litigating is here on display at its very worst:
1. Disregard truth when it gets in the way of the advantage you seek to attain with the aid of law.
2. Say whatever it takes to get judges to go your way, even if you not only omit important facts in making your petition but also affirmatively misstate whatever inconvenient fact gets in your way.
3. Disregard your duty as a prosecutor - which ultimately is to ensure that justice is done even as you pursue alleged criminal wrongdoing - and place the formidable powers of your office at the disposal of a private civil litigant with whom you want to cozy up.
4. Don't give a second thought to wasting the legal and judicial resources of two governments to help put on a charade that is wholly unnecessary to any legitimate goal of the legal system but that serves the interest of a private litigant only.
5. And, perhaps worst of all, don't hesitate to misuse the law to try to ruin the life of an innocent man in order to protect the market dominance you once had but now see as slipping to the point where it can be upheld only by resort to vicious legal tactics aimed at crushing potential competitors.
One recoils at the thought of it and can only wonder who within Cisco would have countenanced it all.
> One recoils at the thought of it and can only wonder who within Cisco would have countenanced it all.
That's the thing. "Cisco" would be hard to hold accountable. But people made those decisions. Was the law broken (false testimony == perjury? barratry?) If so, it was broken by people.
Hold people accountable and you'll see less abuse.
The documentary shows the development of the contemporary business corporation, from a legal entity that originated as a government-chartered institution meant to effect specific public functions, to the rise of the modern commercial institution entitled to most of the legal rights of a person. One theme is its assessment as a "personality", as a result of an 1886 case in the United States Supreme Court in which a statement by Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite[nb 1] led to corporations as "persons" having the same rights as human beings, based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The film's assessment is effected via the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV; Robert Hare, a University of British Columbia psychology professor and a consultant to the FBI, compares the profile of the contemporary profitable business corporation to that of a clinically-diagnosed psychopath. The documentary concentrates mostly upon North American corporations, especially those of the United States.
The film is in vignettes examining and criticizing corporate business practices. It establishes parallels between the way corporations are systematically compelled to behave and the DSM-IV's symptoms of psychopathy, i.e. callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law.
Yes, but that's rather beside the point. Corporations might be psychopaths, but having no hands they physically cannot commit murder - and having no minds cannot even enter into a conspiracy to commit murder. They're like a medical patient in a vegetable state: a legal person and able to interact with the world through those they have granted power of attorney, but not able to take independent action.
EDIT: I should point out, it isn't impossible that a person in a vegetable state could commit some criminal offence - goodness knows we have a lot of laws on the books - and it isn't impossible for a corporation to commit a criminal offence either. Just difficult and/or unusual. On the other hand both can easily commit civil offences and corporations are prosecuted for those all the time.
So if there was a crime committed in lying to the police, it was committed by a human being and unlike certain government workers, people acting on behalf of a corporation enjoy no immunity to prosecution.
And I think you're being overly broad in accusing all corporations of the sins of the view. Corporations that are sole proprietorships seem to have all the same morality as the person who owns them. Non profit corporations like the ACLU also appear to display much more morality than a psychopath, as well. And there are many large groups of people - governments and political parties and so forth - which act like psychopaths without being corporations.
100 years ago, yes, a corporation's actions would lay entirely at the feet of people executing them on its behalf. Now, though, a corporation is made up of just as much automation—web services, manufacturing plants, stock trading AI agents—as it is humans. A corporation could do a person a wrong with no human having any sort of mens rea, save perhaps for a systems engineer who signed off on the consequences of interactions of the project components.
For example, see the many cases where hosting providers have received automatic DMCA takedown notices because some spider detected supposedly-infringing content on one of their hosted websites. Did any person decide to send these notices? Is any human legally at-fault for these actions at all?
> Did any person decide to send these notices? Is any human legally at-fault for these actions at all?
Valid DMCA notices require a statement made under penalty of perjury. Either someone is signing them (and therefore liable), or they're not proper DMCA. That said, people frequently respond to and take stuff down even when issued an improper notice.
That said, I've never heard of anyone getting in serious trouble for filing improper notices, even fairly absurd ones, though I think the EFF litigated one such case over the short YouTube clip of the baby dancing to some big label music. I've also never heard of someone getting convicted of perjury for sending a fraudulent notice, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Their general counsel does indeed appear to be taking ownership of this strategy. I wrote a short, polite email to their Board of Directors address (in my professional capacity as someone who works in this field) asking the directors to consider reviewing the company's legal strategy in light of recent controversy about this case. I received the following reply, which I hope is okay to paste here, since I assume it's a common response they're sending out to all inquiries (not a private email specifically to me), and tells the story as they see it:
Thank you for your email regarding Cisco's legal strategy, which will be provided to the Board of Directors together with this response. We appreciate your input and interest in our company.
In the specific case you referenced, Cisco discovered what it believed to be theft of Cisco software by Mr Adekeye. We brought civil claims against him and his company, and reported the matter to law enforcement, as we customarily do when we believe we have been a victim of theft. After nearly two years of independent investigation, the United States Secret Service issued a criminal complaint alleging that
Mr. Adekeye violated the United States Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in 97 separate instances. As a result, a United States District Court judge signed an arrest warrant for Mr. Adekeye. The decision as to whether to prosecute any criminal matter must be made by governmental authorities, and not by any private citizen or company, and Cisco in no way controlled the bringing of criminal charges against Mr Adekeye, nor did we contact any other agency regarding the matter.
Separately, as part of the civil lawsuit, Cisco presented evidence that Mr. Adekeye repeatedly stole information and software from Cisco using a current employee's credentials to access Cisco's computer network. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with Cisco, and ruled that Mr. Adekeye's conduct violated the U.S. federal anti-hacking statute.
The Canadian judge apparently objected to the fact that Mr. Adekeye was arrested by Canadian authorities during a civil justice proceeding. This is a matter between the US and Canadian governments, and we believe any person or entity concerned about theft of its property would have acted as we did. We strenuously object to the judge's characterization of Cisco's actions, which was based on Mr. Adekeye's allegations in a proceeding in which we did not participate and in which we had no opportunity to present any information.
Again, thank you for your email.
Sincerely,
Mark Chandler
Senior Vice President, Legal Services, General Counsel and Secretary
Unfortunately, there is nothing that will prevent Cisco from doing this again in the future. They didn't get the result they wanted, but in all likelihood they aren't going to see any further rebuke for this ridiculous perversion of justice.
At the end of the day, someone at Cisco made the decision to try and completely ruin this guy's life. My sense of justice tells me that person should face criminal liability for his actions.
My sense of cynicism tells me he'll get promoted instead.
It would be nice if in cases of flagrant abuse such as this, the judge could summarily revoke the credentials of every lawyer who knowingly participated pending a full hearing, which should take... oh, I'd say about a year to complete, during which time they should be restricted in their movements and arbitrarily disparaged by the press and their profession.
Failing that, I'd settle for criminal perjury charges against all responsible, including both the Cisco execs and any lawyers who knowingly participated in the deception.
Cisco at least had a vested interest in getting a result. So the Cisco decision maker was unethical, but perhaps not committing a criminal act by normal standards. (Although I'm sure an aggressive prosecutor could find a charge.)
I'm more disgusted by whomever at the US Department of Justice allowed this farce to go on. As a citizen, I think the my government should act in a certain way that reflects well on our nation. In this case, the Canadian judge found that the US government basically bamboozled the Canadian government, and did so by manipulating facts in way that can be fairly categorized as disingenuous.
That's no way to treat a friend, neighbor and ally. That's just sad.
Bookmarked for the next time Cisco recruiters contact me. If we as the tech community don't shit-list companies like this in the worst way possible, what else can we do?
The economic reason to be a nation of laws instead of powerful men is that the more predictable the system is, the less deadweight losses go into making sure you don't run afoul of it. I worry that as the judicial system becomes more and more capricious and exploitable by moneyed interests, new market entrants without the funds for a huge battery of lawyers will not be new market entrants for long.
I'm guessing that a civil action against Cisco will be pending. This guy has already shown that he was willing to take them on in court. And given how thoroughly the Canadian judge rebuked the US attorney in the case, I doubt the US will be much help to Cisco in the matter.
Playing hardball is one thing, but this is way over the line.
(Deut 19:16-19)
If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse
someone of a crime, the judges must make a
thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to
be a liar, then do to the false witness as
that witness intended to do to the other party.
I think that should be the normal response to malicious use of the legal system.
500 years, each, in prison for all who knew of it? Lovely.
Unfortunately it wouldn't come with its own Kafkaesque implementation and thus wouldn't be half as frustrating as watching your company die while imprisoned half a world away from home, facing obvious yet insidious institutional corruption, and thus wouldn't match the distress they caused.
To reframe the situation, we have, presumably, a single person making a decision and a number of other people, who could see what was going on, deciding to play along. A counter argument is that they're just doing what they need to to keep their jobs. One could argue that the person in charge was doing exactly the same. It's irrational to punish just one person for this when so many more were involved.
That was the point I was trying to make :) OP suggested that whoever made the decision should face criminal liability. I said that all the other people involved should face it too.
I know that somebody is going to starve to death in Africa today. I am not going to fly to Africa, track them down and stop it. That does not make me morally equal to a back-alley mugger. There are different degrees of volition and complicity.
It is possible that no individual person knew the full scope of what was happening. What is needed is anytime a company pursues legal action is a line from the CEO (or delegate) saying they are fully aware of the details of this case and take personal responsibility for its correctness.
What is needed is to charge the company directly as well as any specific people. Nothing should happen without oversight and that's the company's responsibility, in the way a warranty return is the company's, not the mailroom guy's, responsibility.
The discussion is a bit like the Chinese-Room thought experiment. Would you charge the worker if the manual on deciphering Chinese was actually a manual on running a Ponzi scheme in Chinese? In some hypotheses it might be unclear to the workers that the process is ultimately unjust, but practically (speaking as someone who's been (briefly) employed at a few shady companies), intentional ignorance of their effects, and usually an attitude that the customer deserved it for not knowing better, are pervasive from customer service up to management.
Actually, if you could find a person directly responsible, it would probably be best if that person were killed. This is not an isolated incident for the US government, where due process has broken down completely, and if naked power is the only law left it would be better if it cut both ways.
Actually the appropriate response would be to have the Secretary of State in the appropriate US state or Canadian province, yank the corporate charter of Cisco; thereby denying them the ability to operate at all, in that jurisdiction.
Given Cisco's reliance on support contracts this would mean a huge hit to their profits, as well as giving competitors a lowered barrier to entry for government and midsize to large business in that state.
I'm not at all advocating Cisco's behavior (it's very unethical and likely criminal as well) but I think suggesting someone murder a Cisco exec over this is, um, a tad harsh.
... suggesting someone murder a Cisco exec over this is, um, a tad harsh.
No. A coalition of execs conducted a violent kidnapping in broad daylight to make a political statement. It would not be out of line to whack one of them in front of their family. Tit-for-tat ain't just for game theory papers. Illegality isn't much of an argument, since by corrupting the process of law they have placed themselves outside it.
We can reasonably consider even more than that. The execs corrupted many levels of government, but were so inept that the government itself caught them at it. The Feds don't quite use Roman penalties for corruption (crucifixion), but they are harsh and unforgiving. Even a $100 bribe can get you sent to prison for years.
Illegality isn't much of an argument, since by corrupting the process of law they have placed themselves outside it.
I'm thankful that I live in a country where this isn't true, and even people accused of crimes still have the full protection of the law until proven guilty. Even if the crime they are accused of is lying to the police.
And you would, validly, be deserving of the same retaliation by any children of the exec, who you barbarously forced to watch the execution. You should read the Oresteia, just for the small chance you might suddenly grasp the ideal of justice.
Arguing for lynch mob vengeance shows you are completely inept at managing your feelings of righteous anger, potentially sociopathic in your inability to empathize, unconcerned with accuracy or the case of false positives, and just as lame-brained as every single idiot that hit a car in the Vancouver riots.
Furthermore, you should also know that Axelrod's tit-for-tat game theory strategy wins in iterative situations that continue past the first reaction and also relies on forgiveness.
I am not arguing for a lynch mob but describing what a rational actor might do in a serious dispute with Cisco. In such a dispute there is no civil government to appeal to. Cisco has decided they wish to be treated as a sovereign power. So be it. That has great benefits, but also great risks: to paraphrase von Clausewitz, war is a mere continuation of litigation by other means.
And you would, validly, be deserving of the same retaliation by any children of the exec ...
And how would they do that, given that a rational actor would use difficult-to-trace asymmetrical warfare techniques?
... unconcerned with accuracy or the case of false positives ...
Collateral damage is one of the main considerations of the rational opponent theory. His rational counterparts in Cisco will understand that the corporate sovereign strategy has a ghastly risk of blowback and therefore act to stop it. Very few VPs are willing to be gunned down in front of their grandkids so that some dickhead in legal can get a bonus. Likewise for the neighbors, the company that supplies electricity to the corporate headquarters, the banks that settle their financial transactions, the garbage men, and so on. Nobody wants to be on the Death Star unless it is certified rebel proof.
... just as lame-brained as every single idiot that hit a car in the Vancouver riots.
Random violence is illegitimate, a synonym for saying it does not work. It has to be tit-for-tat. Talking about bombing some deli does not keep corporate states in line. What does work is talking about an exec's kids coming home from school to find daddy hanged from the ceiling by his own guts. And if talking does not do the trick, they will eventually victimize someone who strikes back.
Sure sure, that's terrible. But where is your concern for the legal staff and execs who conspired to trump up charge of hacking and lie to obtain an unjust extradition - nearly ruing someone's life and as pointed out above, only one "misunderstanding" away from ending in a police shooting.
This is true, even if unpalatable. It's mob justice, and it's because there aren't mob courts. If there aren't people's courts, or courts providing justice for the people, this will become the people's justice. The phrase "What does work" should suggest to you that it is becoming the common perception, if not fact, that the system does not "work".
The way to fix this is to, VERY severely, punish all those involved in corrupting the proper functioning of the law. You know how severely you'd be punished if you tried to bribe your way out of a drunk hit-and-run slaying of a cop? Certainly it'd occupy at least the next decade or so of your life. Like that, but more, and to the corporation itself as well.
Otherwise the victims, seeing only ruin via the system, will seek their own solutions. I'd like a better system which means identifying why this one doesn't work instead of just hearing happy platitudes while we end up like Russia.
And what's to prevent a "misunderstanding" from resulting in an innocent guy getting strung up by a self-righteous bunch who, in turn, terrorize honest people into not telling the government about real criminals? Have you thought this through? Have you read what went down with lynching in the US south at the turn of the century? Are you aware of what happens with vigilante para-militarism like that in Colombia?
If you want true "ends justify the means" style government, you'll actually want something a bit more like Russia, possibly Tito era Yugoslavia.
Just because I think the most responsible person shouldn't be assassinated in front of his children doesn't mean I didn't get angry at the idea of an arrogant Cisco overstepping its bounds and a DOJ all too happy to play lapdog.
> Have you thought this through? [...] Are you aware of what happens ...
Yes. That's why I want strong and definitive legitimate punishment. Because otherwise that's all we have left and as you say, it can get messy.
> Just because I think the most responsible person shouldn't be assassinated in front of his children doesn't mean I didn't get angry at the idea of an arrogant Cisco overstepping its bounds
That is a little harsh. Maybe... They did try to get this guy a lifelong prison sentence, and that is a bit like death.
Hauled away and chucked in jail for as long as they intended to jail their victim though, that I want their kids to see. That might teach them something valuable - that their parents obviously missed while growing up.
Why the downvotes? If you disagree with an element of fact, then say it.
The simple fact is the Cisco conducted a Russian mob-style kidnapping, to send a political message to the victim and his family. It would easily have turned into a full on mob hit if the victim had put a hand in his pocket and it had been "misinterpreted".
And how is Cisco's next victim to seek redress? Certainly not by crossing a border: they own customs and immigration. Certainly not by working with a foreign court: Cisco's armed agents travel freely anywhere and do as they please. Certainly not by making a complaint to the FBI: who will just turn the complaint over to prosecutors who are Cisco's tame lapdogs.
This is not lost on their prospective victims. With cooperation off the table, they know the choice is to submit or strike first. It is a statistical certainty that one of their prospective victims will choose to strike. It is also a certainty that, given the opaque nature of Cisco's management, that the strike will be broadly targeted. This sort of game-theoretic logic is exactly why corporate disputes in Moscow are so often resolved by bombings.
Cisco has sown the wind, and will reap the whirlwind if they do not clean up their act.
The simple fact is the Cisco conducted a Russian mob-style kidnapping
Re-reading this, I'm now convinced you're trolling. Regardless of whatever inappropriate influence Cisco may have exerted on US authorities, it was the RCMP that arrested Adekeye, and it appears to have been done in a very polite manner.
His point is that it was Cisco that masterminded the privation of liberty, to use it as as a lever in the civil suit. Whether they did it Moscow-style paying mobsters or "country of laws style" by lying to a US prosecutor is immaterial.
I don't know that it would be a Cisco exec, but someone has seriously tarnished the reputation of two nations, one of which is already on pretty shaky ground, and ruined a man's life. Honestly, only losing a year I think he got off light. And just to be clear, I wouldn't say this if I thought there was a reason to have any faith in the justice system of the US. I compare it to some local political boss in China getting the death penalty after pushing things a bit too far and embarrassing his superiors in the party such that they had to send him to his death in order to save face. Live by the sword and all that.
If the national reputations have been damaged, it is the fault of the nations in question, not that of the nameless executive. Nobody forced the prosecutorial abuses explicated in this article.
Be assured, however, that the thin blue line will continue to protect them just as much as Cisco will protect its executives.
Well the issue came about because lawyers (who are implicitly trusted in the legal system) lied openly about the circumstances. Unfortunately this trust is necessary for the legal system to operate, and it seems as though some lawyers have decided to take advantage of that.
I can only hope that the lawyers involved are disbarred for life, and (in the case of American lawyers operating in Canada), charged with a crime and prevented from entering the country again (without facing prosecution).
Regardless of how outraged you might feel, I would suggest not voicing such opinions on the Web. If somebody decided to go through with such a plan, guess who now ranks highly on Google for relevant keywords. You don't want to SEO yourself into a murder investigation.
You know, the remark was over-the-top, but let's also not trivialize the corruption of two governments for the purposes of destroying one man's life by comparing these acts to, say, someone cutting you off in traffic.
The fact is that Cisco appears now to exist outside – above? – the law. I don't have a good, clean answer for how you deal with that. Bloodshed doesn't seem the right answer but it's not like you can trust a civil action to go anywhere when the puppet master has his hand so far up the assholes of so many bureaucrats.
> But we're not in the third world here... legal remedies exist
Tell that to the guy who was legally fucked over for a year. At least in the third world, corruption is acknowledged. Here, despite three pages of detail, you maintain a belief that the same legal mechanisms that allowed this guy to be nearly disappeared will also bring the appropriate wrongdoers to justice.
That strikes me as a little unrealistic. So while I don't agree with murder as a remedy here, I can sympathize with the sense of defeat that inspires it.
I do have faith in the legal system as a whole. Corruption like this should be exposed and eliminated, within the context of that system. Not by murder.
But I don't think that, after reading a story like this one, it's even remotely out of line for others to have such faith escape them. It's hardly a productive discussion, but I'm intrigued by the notion that you can see the system utterly compromised yet still trust it to function. In the end, I'm in the uncomfortable position of finding your view to be as much or more preposterous as the bloodthirsty parent we're responding to.
Put another way: I'm not okay starting the dinner course of a meal in a restaurant that just served me an appetizer including a garnish of rodent droppings.
I wouldn't necessarily start out by going to the DOJ on this... your restaurant analogy I think applies there. But has any other part of the legal system demonstrated corruption in this case?
Even if the corruption were localized to a single chunk of the government, the old trope about a fish rotting from the head seems like it would find reasonable application here. The justice system is an intricate, interconnected component within a much larger interconnected system. But let's see:
"As the case moved through the courts, Adekeye attempted to return to America to participate. He was denied entry. He tried unsuccessfully for months to get back into the US but was continually refused."
There's Customs and Immigration compromised.
"'The US Secret Service issued a criminal complaint after nearly two years of investigation alleging that Mr. Adekeye violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in 97 distinct instances, and as a result a federal judge signed an arrest warrant for Mr. Adekeye...'"
There's Treasury.
"The authorities sprang into action, calling the Canadian government and urging it to use extraordinary powers to arrest Adekeye. Within hours, federal prosecutors were before British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Peter Leask seeking a warrant, painting their dire picture of a nefarious suspect and conjuring a burning sense of urgency. But Canada had been duped."
Don't you need the State Department for something like that?
This strikes me as a clear-cut case of "I have a shitload of money, be a good government and do as I say."
Then we have a government whose powers are so great, and restraints so feeble, a single group of bad actors can manipulate its machinery to deprive an innocent man of his rights in the furtherance of a private agenda.
Boy. That fills me with so much faith in the legal system. ;)
Yeah, we should probably have a government where every person distrust what every other person does and verifies every fact, taking nothing on faith. That'll be efficient.
This is a case where existing laws were not followed properly. You're proposing to add a new law, namely, that those guilty of offense X should be killed. What makes you think your law will be followed properly?
This is more about an appropriate response to the absence of laws. If a government arbitrarily enforces the laws and refuses to consistently follow them itself, the result isn't quite anarchy but it's getting warmer. I'm not proposing a law, because I'm not suggesting that due process ought to be followed in meting out the punishment. Due process need not be followed because if you can't provide a reasonable guarantee that it will be observed in any given case, there isn't much reason to have it at all, and in fact it starts to work against the public interest if it will be followed only when necessary to protect the powerful but disregarded in order to pursue and oppress the weak. There is a narrow but growing range of offenses in the US for which, if accused, you can forget about the courts. What we see here is another has been added to the list.
As an aside, my original comment has sparked quite a large discussion, for having so many downvotes.
Unfortunately, the discussion sparked is not very interesting. I'm not sure you're an intentional troll, but many responses (particularly if they're all trying to say "no, that's a horrible idea because...") don't indicate a worthwhile comment so much as a successful troll.
In this case, if the powers-that-be were as powerful as you claim, we wouldn't even be having this conversation; Peter Adekeye would not be free and back with his family considering legal action, the Canadian judge would not be lambasting the US and Canadian prosecutors who were involved, etc. etc..
Am I just another sucker for the troll, though? This seems obvious, which means it's probably boring for most readers.
I see an interesting discussion about the merits of mob justice and vigilantism if they serve as a check against corruption, i.e. if the specter of such would compel the ruling class to curtail the worst abuses before enough group delusions are shattered that the society can no longer sustain itself and all hell breaks loose.
Sorry if you don't find it interesting. Especially sorry if you perceive everything you don't like/care about as a troll.
Earnest urged a lawsuit and even raised the idea of criminal charges against Bosack. He e-mailed colleagues: "The fundamental problem is: how do you negotiate an equitable agreement with crooks?"
"1985-88 Back at Stanford as associate chair of Computer Science and also involved in parallel processing research, I discovered that the founder of Cisco Systems, who I was supervising, was selling Stanford technology. I prepared for legal action and induced him to resign but later discovered that the Stanford administration avoids suing corporations whenever possible, thinking of them as potential donors. After a couple of years, during which Cisco illicitly made millions, Stanford gave them a sweetheart licensing deal. A few years later I ran across an endowed chair at Stanford in the name of the chief crook and funded by Cisco. There was additional dirt beneath the surface of these transactions but that story will have to wait till later." -- http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/net.htm
It might be worth contacting members of Cisco's board of directors to inquire whether they plan to do something to avoid this kind of illicit behavior in the future. A board of directors doesn't manage day-to-day affairs, but is ultimately responsible for high-level oversight. The Cisco board of directors includes a number of people with generally solid reputations (including the president of Stanford University) who ought to be shocked if a company under their watch has engaged in this sort of behavior.
Alternatively/additionally, many of us have occasion to do business with Cisco now and then, and if you currently do, you might mention a concern to your local Cisco office/representative.
These days they'd be more concerned if people on this site refused to work for them and passed this story around to friends who would avoid it as well.
This is part of a pretty disturbing general trend of large corporations using the criminal justice system as if it were an extension of themselves. I honestly don't see how anyone at Cisco who signed off on this sleeps at night.
It's not so much a "trend" as a "tradition". Wherever a formal system of justice exists, it is invariably used to some degree by those in power to do their bidding. After all, it decisions and actions are still those of fallible (and bribable) humans.
It is an extension of themselves. Any process that involves elections in the US is now basically corrupt and open to the highest bidder.
They sleep by telling themselves that the "enemy" is doing it too, and how they wish the world wasn't this way, but being a pussy about it isn't realistic and so why shouldn't I make a living. Same logic that says if I don't shove this Jew on the train, they might be shoving me on it.
I always assumed that court rulings were cryptic and overloaded with legal jargon, so I never attempted to read them. However, the ruling provided was very easy to read and just as informative as the article.
FWIW The Vancouver Sun is a reputable newspaper by reasonable ethical and reporting standards. They do lack an interesting material to write about now and then, but then which newspaper does not.
It seems to me Ronald McKinnon was one of the only sensible authorities in this entire ordeal. I can't believe someone didn't hit the reality check button earlier.
With that being said, I'm not defending him breaking into Cisco's system, and I think the entire act of doing so should lead to actions against him (but not so extreme). Rather than criminal action, I would've thought an injunction, or something to that effect, would've been more appropriate.
Yes, and while the behavior of Cisco was reprehensible there is also a requirement that the judiciary be a bit more skeptical when the government is so imprecise in their claims.
It would be a good thing if Canada imposed stricter evidentiary standards to extradition as a result of this.
Linksys, which is the Cisco consumer/small-business brand, is rarely if ever the cheapest. So in this case, ethics and self-interest may coincide. -- At least, as long as we know nothing about the other manufacturers.
It's not only sticker price that counts. Maintenance, expected lifespan, expandability, training, financing, familiarity of your sysadmins...
Actually, I was quite naïve in my OP. Networking equipment and software selection is rarely conducted by people who can understand what they are doing. The person who makes the sale usually ends up being the one who wined and dined the most high-ranking exec in the client.
I've never really followed Cisco before, but this story has really tainted my view of them. I'll think twice next time I see the Cisco logo on something.
I was just thinking of buying some Cisco routers (low-end for them -- I'm sure it's a drop in the bucket for them), but I'm definitely not going to now. This image of Cisco will be hard for me shake.
This guy has the most ridiculous set of balls. The audacity is just out of this world. To suggest that Cisco "derailed one man's life" is not doing him justice at all. Rather the opposite - one man derailed a massive company's plans for dominating its industry. The really amazing thing is that he is alive at all, given the amount of money Cisco isn't going to have going forward.
As a US citizen I've found it hard to accept the idea that the US justice system is a thing of the past. At the end of the day though an endless string of examples is proving the fact to be undeniable.
In no way am I excusing what was done to this guy, but when will people learn that accessing a computer without permission has anything other than serious consequences. As far as the law is concerned, he might as well have raped the CEO's wife.
No - the damage done is not remotely equivalent, and yet the criminal penalties are the same.
Peg me down as sickened to the core. I've given up complaining about corporate influence. I don't even know why they bother putting up a farse anymore, they may as well just cut the crap and come out and say: we will destroy you if it stretches our margins in any way.
I was told by my financial advisor to buy CSCO because of its sound fundamentals, BUT after this, I will stay away from them, it is the least I can do.
The message I was replying to wasn't saying that. It was taking a snipe at free marketers by [sarcastically] claiming it's OK for a corp to do whatever it wants, just like people. It was just straight up a stupid statement.
Something like your statement I wouldn't have blinked at. A libertarian I may be, but I think I could stand to see some corporate veil-piercing over this. Corporations shouldn't have the power to destroy your personal life over what amounted to a business scuffle. (The little-l in my libertarianism is because I don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism, but in something more like curated or harnessed capitalism, regulations designed to maximize the good of the market while muting the bad. This may sound self-evident when I pitch it my way, but very little regulation is actually written that way; usually the real purpose of a given regulation, as demonstrated by actions, is something else.)
1. Disregard truth when it gets in the way of the advantage you seek to attain with the aid of law.
2. Say whatever it takes to get judges to go your way, even if you not only omit important facts in making your petition but also affirmatively misstate whatever inconvenient fact gets in your way.
3. Disregard your duty as a prosecutor - which ultimately is to ensure that justice is done even as you pursue alleged criminal wrongdoing - and place the formidable powers of your office at the disposal of a private civil litigant with whom you want to cozy up.
4. Don't give a second thought to wasting the legal and judicial resources of two governments to help put on a charade that is wholly unnecessary to any legitimate goal of the legal system but that serves the interest of a private litigant only.
5. And, perhaps worst of all, don't hesitate to misuse the law to try to ruin the life of an innocent man in order to protect the market dominance you once had but now see as slipping to the point where it can be upheld only by resort to vicious legal tactics aimed at crushing potential competitors.
One recoils at the thought of it and can only wonder who within Cisco would have countenanced it all.