14 ms·

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

by kwantam 15y ago

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.

Dove 15y ago
I like the old testament standard: (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.
- wnight 15y ago
  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.
khafra 15y ago
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.
Duff 15y ago
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.
bluedanieru 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.
  - bluedanieru 15y ago
    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.
    - diolpah 15y ago
      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.
      - danudey 15y ago
        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).
mbreese 15y ago
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.
Silhouette 15y ago
Sadly, I suspect you are correct on all counts. 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.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Produce 15y ago
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. EDIT: What, exactly, do you all disagree with?
- prospero 15y ago
  "It's what I had to do to keep my job" isn't some sort of cure-all justification for unethical/criminal behavior.
  - Produce 15y ago
    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.
    - chc 15y ago
      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.
      - true_religion 15y ago
        That isn't an argument against what he said. He said that all those involved should be charged. You're giving an example of vague knowledge without involvement.
  - jackpirate 15y ago
    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.
potatolicious 15y ago
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?
- harryh 15y ago
  Good idea! I've done the same. Good for when Cisco sales reps contact me as well.

by kwantam 15y ago

Dove 15y ago

I like the old testament standard: (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.

wnight 15y ago
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.

khafra 15y ago

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.

Duff 15y ago

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.

bluedanieru 15y ago

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 15y ago
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.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  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.
  - diolpah 15y ago
    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.
    - danudey 15y ago
      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).

mbreese 15y ago

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.

Silhouette 15y ago

Sadly, I suspect you are correct on all counts. 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.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Produce 15y ago

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. EDIT: What, exactly, do you all disagree with?

prospero 15y ago
"It's what I had to do to keep my job" isn't some sort of cure-all justification for unethical/criminal behavior.
- Produce 15y ago
  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.
  - chc 15y ago
    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.
    - true_religion 15y ago
      That isn't an argument against what he said. He said that all those involved should be charged. You're giving an example of vague knowledge without involvement.
- jackpirate 15y ago
  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.

potatolicious 15y ago

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?

harryh 15y ago
Good idea! I've done the same. Good for when Cisco sales reps contact me as well.