A pound of flesh: how Cisco's "unmitigated gall" derailed one man's life
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
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.
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 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...
If a Cisco employee murdered someone in the pursuance of Cisco's interests, it would be the employee, not Cisco, who would be liable I think?
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.
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?
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.
I think Google "cisco general counsel" would be a reasonable start.
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
Cisco Systems, Inc.
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.
Be assured, however, that the thin blue line will continue to protect them just as much as Cisco will protect its executives.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, Stalin / Kaczynski.
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.
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.
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.
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.
/s
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.
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.
That sounds neat for you.
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.
"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."
Boy. That fills me with so much faith in the legal system. ;)
I think this will be the most brilliant thing I read today
As an aside, my original comment has sparked quite a large discussion, for having so many downvotes.
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.
Sorry if you don't find it interesting. Especially sorry if you perceive everything you don't like/care about as a troll.
Playing hardball is one thing, but this is way over the line.
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.
EDIT: What, exactly, do you all disagree with?
He said that all those involved should be charged. You're giving an example of vague knowledge without involvement.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
"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...
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.
John Chambers Building 10 300 E Tasman Drive San Jose, California 95134
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.
(Link to the ruling: http://www.multiven.com/media/news/pdfs/USAvsAdekeye-BC_Cana...)
"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"
The Vancouver Sun, whose reporter wrote this story for Ars, strikes me as a rather sensationalist paper. YMMV.
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.
It would be a good thing if Canada imposed stricter evidentiary standards to extradition as a result of this.
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.
No - the damage done is not remotely equivalent, and yet the criminal penalties are the same.