... 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.
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.