
A pound of flesh: how Cisco's "unmitigated gall" derailed one man's life - diogenescynic
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/a-pound-of-flesh-how-ciscos-unmitigated-gall-derailed-one-mans-life.ars
======
grellas
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.

~~~
jbert
> 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.

~~~
Create
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.

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Corporati...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Corporation)

~~~
Symmetry
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.

~~~
derefr
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?

~~~
Natsu
> 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.

------
kwantam
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.

~~~
bluedanieru
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.

~~~
sspencer
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.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
_... 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.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
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.

~~~
antiterra
_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.

~~~
ovi256
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.

------
Create
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>

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hewlett-
Packa...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hewlett-
Packard_spying_scandal)

------
_delirium
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.

Here is a list, though you'll have to search elsewhere for contact
information: <http://investor.cisco.com/directors.cfm>

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.

~~~
jswinghammer
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.

------
smhinsey
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.

~~~
yardie
I'm sure whoever signed off on it probably assuages themself with money,
hookers, and blow.

~~~
smhinsey
A winning long term strategy, to be sure.

------
RegEx
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.

(Link to the ruling: [http://www.multiven.com/media/news/pdfs/USAvsAdekeye-
BC_Cana...](http://www.multiven.com/media/news/pdfs/USAvsAdekeye-
BC_Canada_Supreme_Court_Ruling-May_31_2011.pdf))

~~~
afterburner
Thanks! Some nice gems in there:

"This seems to be the start of a series of misadventures that could only be
the subject of a Joseph Heller novel"

and

"I accept, as well, that not only was the issuing judge and the bail judge
misled, but Canada as well"

------
anigbrowl
You might want to read the filings in the civil case
([http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2008cv0...](http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2008cv05391/209307/))
and poke around Mr Adekeye's websites before taking everything in this story
at face value. There's a lot left out, and the reporter's backgrounder on page
2 is simply cut'n'pasted from Adekeye's own bio at
<http://www.multiven.com/about>

The Vancouver Sun, whose reporter wrote this story for Ars, strikes me as a
rather sensationalist paper. YMMV.

~~~
abcd_f
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.

------
Shenglong
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.

~~~
ChuckMcM
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.

------
meow
Now any future litigant will think twice before tackling Cisco. I'm sure they
consider that part a win, even if they had to finally settle.

~~~
poutine
Perhaps we should be thinking twice about buying Cisco products and rewarding
such an apparently unethical company.

~~~
rbanffy
Sadly, people usually buy not from the most ethical manufacturer, but from the
cheapest.

~~~
riobard
Cisco is hardly the cheapest manufacture, right?

~~~
rbanffy
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.

------
evilswan
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.

------
kenjackson
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.

------
absconditus
This and the News Corp. situation seem like real-life examples of what goes on
in the show Damages.

------
davidjhall
Cisco has proven itself an evil company. In other recent news, Cisco promised
to create jobs for a "tax holiday" and instead, is laying off employees:
[http://www.googlemonopoly.eu/index.php/2011/07/19/cisco-
want...](http://www.googlemonopoly.eu/index.php/2011/07/19/cisco-wants-tax-
repatriation-holiday-will-create-jobs-but-now-massive-laying-off-employees/)

------
sutro
Well done, Ars Technica - the best tech journalism in the business.

------
twilsndfdf
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.

------
forgotAgain
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.

------
t413
Human depravity at its best.

------
buff-a
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_.

~~~
anonymousDan
But he had an employee's permission.

------
naeem
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.

------
roschdal
Boycotting Cisco.

------
hariis
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.

------
sliverstorm
You can be arrested in the middle of a court testimony? That just doesn't make
sense.

~~~
Symmetry
Canadian police aren't required to respect non-Canadian judicial proceedings
in Canada - though they really ought to have in this case.

