Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Peter Adekeye Freed, Judge Outraged At Cisco's Involvement

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the corporatism-with-a-bullet dept.

Canada 271

puppetman writes "Ars Technica has an article relating the recent release of Peter Adekeye, a former Cisco employee who was arrested in Canada on trumped-up charges that appear to have been fabricated by Cisco. Slashdot covered the story back in April, 2011, during which time Mr Adekeye was still being detained. In the ruling, the judge squashed the US extradition request, rebuked both the Canadian and American authorities for 'an appalling abuse of process,' and goes as far as to say that the criminal proceeding was launched on behalf of Cisco, to mirror the civil proceedings that Mr Adekeye had launched against the powerful Cisco." The full judgement (PDF) is quite readable and damning.

cancel ×

271 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yay. (5, Insightful)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842098)

Great. It's "damning". Yay.

Will we see any penalties for Cisco breaking the law?

*crickets*

Re:Yay. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842156)

Welcome to the world of big bad corporations. Isn't it time the world take back the power it has given powerful rich men/women via the anonymous entity called business?

Re:Yay. (1, Offtopic)

Trails (629752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842172)

Your comment tagline says "Anonymous Coward" but your comment screams Zach De La Rocha. How's Tom?

Re:Yay. (4, Insightful)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842254)

The rich have always been in control. Always have been, always will be. It's the golden rule:

He who has the gold makes the rules

Re:Yay. (1)

essayservices (2242884) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842846)

Re:upper (0)

xeon13 (2268514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842850)

There's a lot more, if someone else who read the whole thing could respond with more highlights, that'd probably be informative.

Re:Yay. (0)

kakarote (2294232) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842852)

he doesn't do and hasn't done ANYTHING. He'd rather go on vacation... dude, you need to cut back on the Faux news.

Re:Yay. (0)

xiayou (2316372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842856)

Why do you think that? Nothing earth shattering has happened in the last 8 years where they were appointed and replaced, in a minority. Nothing earth shattering happened when the liberals were in charge for over a decade. Judge selection in Canada is generally impartial based on the merits of the judge at the federal level, has and continues to be. Provincial politics, not so much, but it's by far better than elected judges. Of course a judge breaching the judicial oath system is actually a fairly serious offence here. Meaning a judge can end up going off to prison in the worst case. The basic rule of judges is: You can hold no political affiliation, nor own businesses or enterprise in Canada. They must act as agents of the people.

Re:Yay. (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842182)

Good thing they aren't dealing with the UN. We all know how scary their actions are.

Marc Emery? (2)

toastar (573882) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842500)

Wow, and to think I had lost faith in the Canadian extradition process.

precedent is a powerful thing (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842242)

years from now, maybe 10, maybe 20, there will be other cases like this.

the defense attorneys will go "Look, what the courts already ruled in 2011. Look what the judge said."

Judges in the US often rely heavily on precedent, and the future judge will go "oh. . . wow. that judge was pissed. dismissed with prejudice!"

Re:precedent is a powerful thing (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842282)

They don't rely much on Canadian precedent, though.

Re:precedent is a powerful thing (1)

linuxrocks123 (905424) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842564)

Canadian courts do, eh?

extradition cases (5, Interesting)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842842)

linuxrocks points out that Canadian courts will look at this precedent, even if American's don't.

however the DOJ has to deal with courts in other countries. especially in extradition cases, of course.

cases like this are embarassements. when other countries completely trash our justice system, it looks bad, it makes the US look bad, and it makes the president look bad. this is not some crazy anti-american judge in a dictatorship, this is an ordinary canadian judge, whose justice system largely derives from the same source (english common law) as ours does.

its not just about the precedent in US law... the DOJ has to look at what a Canadian court is likely to do, before it orders extradition. So the US prosecutors will be looking at the history of Canadian law, and deciding whether or not they have a chance of extraditing someone, before they spend all of the time and money, and risk embarassing losses, to actually try to do it.

Re:precedent is a powerful thing (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842938)

US Judges typically follow things on a global level to some degree...while they probably won't cite it as precedent it can be sure that for such a high profile case that judges are well aware of what's happened here.

Re:Yay. (5, Interesting)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842300)

The current judgement was only to apply the 'stay of proceedings' on the extradition request, as that was what the client sought. It appears Mr. Adekeye will be launching a claim against Cisco, and hopefully this will get the mainstream media on the story.

He's been trying to enter the U.S. for years, but would not break visa (which has also apparently been used against him, and Cisco attemting contempt of court pleadings even though they very clearly knew exactly why he was not there, and where he was.

Claiming he was a Nigerian citizen pretending to travel under a U.K. password and 'claiming to live in Switzerland'. This lie was repeated during the extradition request to the Canadian authorities, even though his completely valid U.K. passport had very recently spent 5 weeks in the London U.S. Embassy, a fact that was also known to Cisco and presumably Cisco's councel.

If the U.S. authorities wanted him arrested, the easiest way would have been to respond to one of his multiple and very recent requests to enter the U.S.

There's a lot more, if someone else who read the whole thing could respond with more highlights, that'd probably be informative.

In conclusion, what seems to have happened here is that Cisco, in retaliation for a lawsuit against them, has colluded illegally with the U.S. Justice Department on using deceit and lies, abuse of process and every legal bullshit tactic the nastiest lawyer team from hell could think up to put the defendant under maximum legal pressure since a company he is involved with had the audacity to sue Cisco. Oh, and the settlement in the lawsuit seems to have favored said company and not Cisco.

This is so nasty I'll be demanding a written response from Cisco on what measures they are taking to ensure this never happens again if I am to be in conscience ever to recommend a Cisco product again.

And I hope his suit for damages (and hopefully punitive damage) gets the attention it deserves and that he is awarded ample millions and Cisco and the Department of Justice a public and very heavy black eye. This is behavior we cannot accept from corporations or anyone.

Re:Yay. (2)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842364)

Oh, and a good way to force Cisco to make some kind of statement would be to request them from your Cisco representatives, on Cisco forums like http://forums.cisco.com/ecom/web/sms3/forums/-/message_boards/category/13121 [cisco.com] , etc.

Sending printed letters to

Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134 USA

is also probably a good idea.

I mean, if they lay flat, fire the legal team in question and commit to publically planning how to ensure abuses of process of this scale, or even far lower scales will happen again, that'd probably be a good move.

If they don't respond with a great amount of humility and regret, I know I'll stay as far away from Cisco and their surrounding chain of companies as practical, and make a habit of informing my customers on good reasons to avoid Cisco.

Re:Yay. (4, Informative)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842378)

Oh, and a good way to force Cisco to make some kind of statement would be to request them from your Cisco representatives, on Cisco forums like http://forums.cisco.com/ecom/web/sms3/forums/-/message_boards/category/13121 [cisco.com] , etc.

Sending printed letters to

Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134 USA

is also probably a good idea.

I mean, if they lay flat, fire the legal team in question and commit to publically planning how to ensure abuses of process of this scale, or even far lower scales will never happen again, that'd probably be a good move.

If they don't respond with a great amount of humility and regret, I know I'll stay as far away from Cisco and their surrounding chain of companies as practical, and make a habit of informing my customers on good reasons to avoid Cisco.

Minor correction :-p

Re:Yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842454)

Please highlight your minor correction. My brain's /usr/bin/diff is broken.

-Anon who would've modded you up, but didn't because you're presenting yourself as a moron. :-p

Re:Yay. (2)

aevan (903814) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842828)

will happen again --> will never happen again

Re:Yay. (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842476)

I can't imagine any reason at all that each and every person who signed off on this shouldn't be immediately arrested and held without bail on charges of kidnapping, wrongful imprisonment, perjury, wire fraud and contempt of court.

I am all too painfully aware that the law is for peons, not corporate lawyers and government officials and so they will face no penalty at all, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't face charges.

If there is an actual honest law enforcement agency still functioning out there, kindly arrest these lawless thugs. If not, why should we obey any of them for any reason?

Re:Yay. (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842652)

If not, why should we obey any of them for any reason?

They'll shoot your baby if you chose not to. That's the ugly truth, and the basis for our system of government.

Time for an evolution.

Re:Yay. (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842834)

Sadly agreed.

Re:Yay. (2)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842504)

I wish it made sense for Canada to revoke all of its extradition treaties with the US over this. Unfortunately, that would mean Canada would become a haven for actual criminals, which would be quite bad for Canadians. I do think though that Canada should seriously rethink extradition issues and make it much, much harder for the US to extradite people as a result of this.

Re:Yay. (1)

dutchd00d (823703) | more than 3 years ago | (#36843004)

I wish it made sense for Canada to revoke all of its extradition treaties with the US over this. Unfortunately, that would mean Canada would become a haven for actual criminals, which would be quite bad for Canadians

Then maybe not revoke, but "suspend pending an investigation". That would at least get the attention of the international press.

Re:Yay. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842532)

He can make all the claims he wants. Last time I check corporate espionage is still a crime.

The man is a criminal. But apparently Canadians are too stupid to understand that.

Re:Yay. (1)

duracelllll (1955030) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842578)

So will Cisco be the next Sony on the receiving end of a bunch of attacks? One can only hope....

Re:Yay. (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842794)

Wait... Does anyone still buy cisco? I thought they jumped the shark years ago, and have just turned into a another Oracle.. Invent nothing, acquire everything..

Re:Yay. (5, Insightful)

DMiax (915735) | more than 3 years ago | (#36843028)

What about this: Cisco and Adekeye agreed that the court proceedings would be held in Vancouver from 18-20th of May because he was denied visa. On 19th they filed the criminal complaint alleging that he was likely to flee after the hearing. The Canadian authority was not informed that the hearing had a legal value and interrupted it so that in the end Adekeye could not testify. Talk about good timing...

Also of note that the judge was outraged as well at the US Secret Service, since all this ploy could not be effected without the help of the sovereign state.

As I understand it: in the last year this guy could not leave Canada, meet his family in Switzerland nor work. All because the USSS decided to give a hand to Cisco in smearing him and paint him in a bad light for the antitrust trial. I would be surprised if the judge was not outraged.

Re:Yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36843088)

Mod parent up (grandparent here, from phone)

Re:Yay. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842306)

...because this is a Canadian judge, and Cisco is an American company... Cisco, their lawyers and the American Government agencies who abused the system, and also forced significant costs on the Canadian system, will go completely free of any penalties.

With southern neighbours like that, who needs enemies? As TMZ would put it (in wrestling parlance) Canada just got its oil checked.

Re:Yay. (4, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842344)

They will be fined, possibly up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. What greater deterrent could there be?

Re:Yay. (5, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842510)

Corporate Death Penalty and Billion Dollars in Penalties, arresting all senior officers and the Board of Directors. The Buck stops THERE.

Re:Yay. (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842848)

Corporate Death Penalty and Billion Dollars in Penalties, arresting all senior officers and the Board of Directors. The Buck stops THERE.

But, but, but... shareholders!

Re:Yay. (4, Funny)

macshit (157376) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842942)

Corporate Death Penalty and Billion Dollars in Penalties, arresting all senior officers and the Board of Directors. The Buck stops THERE.

But, but, but... shareholders!

Ok, arrest them too.

Re:Yay. (1)

DMiax (915735) | more than 3 years ago | (#36843042)

But, but, but... shareholders!

Shareholders should seek relief against those that they entrusted to run the company profitably, which includes not getting bankrupted by fines.

Not a bad idea (5, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36843054)

Corporate Death Penalty

Since the US treats corporations as individuals this is not a bad idea and has the huge benefit that nobody actually dies. Just shut the corporation down, all property is confiscated and sold to recompense the victims and any excess donated to relevant charities and all IP is released the to public domain (to repay damage to society the company caused). Executives get nothing - all pay, bonues, pensions etc cancelled (and they may be liable for further criminal charges/penalties if warranted) and most importantly even the shareholders get nothing so that they are very strongly motivated to not turn a blind eye if they suspect something is rotten.

Of course we will never see anything like that actually happen because the corporations are far too powerful but wouldn't that be an amazing deterrent to corporate misbehaviour!

Re:Yay. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842592)

hundreds of thousands? Big freakin' deal.

You could start by:
1) Formally dissolving the company
2) Nullifying all issued stock as the company is dissolved and no longer has any value or shares
3) Auctioning off all material goods, patents, and merchandise to the highest bidder, with all proceeds to go to:
        a) The poor defendant in an amount determined by a jury, and then tripled
      b) All non-managerial and non-legal team, particularly any that were paid in stock
4) Immediately freeze all managerial and legal team fiscal assets
5) Nullify the corporate veil
6) Arrest all managerial and legal team members. Throw the whole book at them... include RICO charges if possible
7) Follow up with SWAT team raid of justice department members involved in collusion. Throw them into general populace if convicted.

Fining somebody who makes billions a percent of that is irrelevant. I want to see someone executed for this perversion of justice.

Re:Yay. (4, Insightful)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842382)

Welcome to Plutocracy, HG wells warned us all decades ago, and Samuel Zane Battens almost a century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy [wikipedia.org]

“Countless people will hate the new world order and will die protesting against it "

– H.G. Wells, The New World Order (1939)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_World_Order_(Wells) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Yay. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842644)

We didn't need anyone to warn us, this is common sense that any schmuck could've written about a hundred years ago. The problem is that people aren't doing shit about it, or don't realize that they should be.

Re:Yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842478)

Time to start putting lead in heads...

Re:Yay. (0)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842924)

Time to start putting lead in heads...

Seems to me it's time to start taking lead OUT of heads...

The only thing preventing concrete change in the system of injustice and corruption in the US is the learned helplessness of the American people. Every vote MATTERS. Find new candidates and get them elected. LIBERALS, I'M LOOKING AT YOU. The Tea Party has shown us all the way, we just have to rally support.

Re:Yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842490)

No kidding. By the way I think I just saw the Constitution up on Ebay. No BIN option but there's no reserve!

So (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842100)

there are still actual judges on this planet after all .....

Re:So (2, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842226)

"there are still actual judges on this planet after all .....
"

Notice this judge is not an American one. If it were you bet he would probably be in the slammer as many judges are elected by businesses who lobby for pro corporate friendly judges to rule in their favor. Canada has actual sanity and does not allow this appauling abuse.

Re:So (3, Insightful)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842284)

Uhhh, I am positive this sort of abuse happens in Canada. It happens anywhere where money is important to people. It may not be as bad as the US, but you can't say it doesn't happen.

Re:So (1)

sadness203 (1539377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842420)

With the Harper Government and the new judges he appointed, it just going to be faster until we catch up to US standard.

Re:So (1, Insightful)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842444)

Well, at least you don't have Obama. He is a good speaker, and seems like a nice guy, but he doesn't do and hasn't done ANYTHING. He'd rather go on vacation, or while actually doing the duties of his office "talk" about doing something without backing it up. I suppose that's better than doing the wrong thing all the time like Bush did, but in a recession you sort of need politicians to try to do something, and try to make it right.

Re:So (3, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842484)

You mean, except get bin Laden, get Healthcare reform passed and stave off another Great Depression.

But, yeah obviously he's only been talking because none of that ever happened...

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842570)

The key phrase there is "stave off another Great Depression". That's all he's done is hold it off. It's still waiting there in the wings for the conditions to be right for a return and those conditions are not far off. In fact I'd say their time will come in the next few weeks.

The same thing happened in the 30's. The American government got involved and it took years longer for the States to recover than the rest of the world.

Re:So (3, Informative)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842658)

This Congress would never permit anything like the actions the American government took in the 30s, even if Obama were championing such a thing. Just one example: in 1936, we raised the tax rate on the rich from 63% to 79% while holding everyone else's taxes steady.

Re:So (2)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842940)

This Congress would never permit anything like the actions the American government took in the 30s, even if Obama were championing such a thing. Just one example: in 1936, we raised the tax rate on the rich from 63% to 79% while holding everyone else's taxes steady.

Instead, they're planning on bumping taxes on the rich down... again.

Bully. Old Herbert Hoover would have been proud.

Re:So (1, Insightful)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842572)

He didn't do any of that except Bin Laden, and even that was not due directly to his involvement. The military did that, and even as commander in chief he knows next to nothing about what actually happens day to day in the military. The rest of that, that was congress or fabricated. You can't prove a great depression would have ever happened, nor can you prove anything saved it from happening.

Re:So (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842812)

stave off another Great Depression.

A) A lot of the measures touted as "staving off the great depression" were agreed upon before Obama was elected
B) we dont know that it would have been a great depression
C) The unemployment rate has gotten worse since he got into office

But he sure does like to rail against the fat cats, and thats what counts.

Re:So (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842960)

You mean, except get bin Laden, get Healthcare reform passed and stave off another Great Depression.

A recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression's when you lose yours, right?

Re:So (1)

LittleRedStar (723170) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842524)

he doesn't do and hasn't done ANYTHING. He'd rather go on vacation...

dude, you need to cut back on the Faux news.

Re:So (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842818)

Lets see, he ended the war-- mission accomplished! Except then it wasnt, and we still have troops overseas. Whoops.
But then, he closed gitmo! Except, he didnt.
No more bills with earmarks! Oh wait, he didnt follow thru on that either.
Unemployment wont go up! Except then it did.

Well, Osama was captured under his watch, so i suppose we can give him credit for that, sort of, in a "hes commander in chief" sort of way.

I know something he did! He started a new war, without congressional approval, after bold criticisms of Bush for that very thing (even though Bush HAD approval). Thats something, I guess.

Re:So (1, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842534)

Um, this was the OBAMA Justice Department. If this were Bush's Justice Department, I'm sure Darth Cheney or Halliburton would have been blamed. So, where is the outrage from the "left" here?

The left are just useful idiots and the right are just idiots.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842792)

First of all, you're being a douchebag, this isn't fark.com.

This thread is filled with comments against these actions by the justice department. Do you think everyone here is on the "right"?

It's flabbergasting how obtuse you've decided to be here today. Go get laid my friend, pay for it if you have to.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842462)

Yeah b/c the supreme court should consist of only the liberal judges appointed by Chrétien and Martin. No need for balanced perspectives!

Re:So (2)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842970)

Yeah b/c the supreme court should consist of only the liberal judges appointed by Chrétien and Martin. No need for balanced perspectives!

Yeah, right. The Court should represent both sides - the People AND the Plutocracy! It's only fair (and balanced).

Re:So (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842494)

The key here is that Harper *appointed the judges* and they were not elected. Usually elected officials support the people but with lobbying they all need money from the corporations and special interest business groups to run the fancy commercials on TV in the states.

Appointed judges are much more impartial even if they are more conservative from Harper. They will not feel the pressure to canter to Cisco or risk losing their career in the next election cycle.

Re:So (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842732)

Why do you think that? Nothing earth shattering has happened in the last 8 years where they were appointed and replaced, in a minority. Nothing earth shattering happened when the liberals were in charge for over a decade. Judge selection in Canada is generally impartial based on the merits of the judge at the federal level, has and continues to be. Provincial politics, not so much, but it's by far better than elected judges. Of course a judge breaching the judicial oath system is actually a fairly serious offence here. Meaning a judge can end up going off to prison in the worst case. The basic rule of judges is: You can hold no political affiliation, nor own businesses or enterprise in Canada. They must act as agents of the people.

I realize that you think that 'conservatives' are doom to you, but some of the greatest acts against the canadian rights and freedoms have come from liberals. Not to mention corruption.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842694)

What's your point? It happens in other places, so it's ok you don't need to fix the problem in your own country?
I've lived on 4 different continents and even more countries and I can tell you, everywhere I've been, people wouldn't have reacted like you. They'd have said "This is true, we really have a serious problem here. We need to fix it". They wouldn't care whether their neighbors have it better or worse because that would not improve their own situation.
The worst part is, I'm sure you've discussed the same issues with other Americans, but you're simply too proud to discuss it with foreigners. And if a foreigner brings it up, you have a knee-jerk reaction of taking it as an insult rather than constructive criticism.

The USA really need to stop thinking this is a contest between nations to be the best, if they want to advance. One can live in the best cave in the world, but it's still a cave and doesn't beat the worst building.

Screw 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842174)

BOYCOTT Cisco

Re:Screw 'em (2)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842194)

tell it to businesses, but its not likely to happen

id like to see the US and Canada fine them or whatever the hell is appropriate for bullshitting two national governments in order to handle your private affairs for you.

Re:Screw 'em (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842244)

> bullshitting two national governments in order to handle your private affairs for you.

There was no bullshitting. The governments are only too happy to do as they are told,

Whores... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842318)

BOYCOTT Cisco

You know, there are other reasons as well, and not just an overpriced product.

The one that comes to my mind first is the prevalence of Cisco hardware in many of the world's most oppressive regimes "great firewalls".

Of course there are many whores in the high-tech world, not just Cisco...

Re:Screw 'em (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842346)

BOYCOTT Cisco

The same company that's all but leading the charge to lower the corporate tax rate in the US, while simultaneously shipping jobs overseas?

Whatever for?

Re:Screw 'em (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842824)

Its a company, what do you expect them to do? Ask for higher taxes? Ask for more job regulations?

Re:Screw 'em (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842884)

And there's the rub. "They're a company, so, of course they're just a big sociopath" isn't really an excuse, is it?

Hmm . . . Cisco in a funk? (2)

mallyn (136041) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842220)

They seem to be in a funk lately

First, I heard about the layoffs

Then I overheard a conversation about them being clipped at both ends of the stick by stiff competition; Juniper on the high end and some Chinese company whose name I forgot on the low end

And now this

Perhaps Netflix, whose price hikes were the subject of another Slashdot story; about three stories ago; could be in a position to buy Cisco out and then use them as their in-house infrastructure provider?

Ever thought about moving to Canada? (2)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842236)

Hey, Peter -- if you get sick of Switzerland, think about moving to Canada. I'd be happy to have you as my neighbour.

End of America (2, Insightful)

justcauseisjustthat (1150803) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842334)

This is just another sad statement showing the "End of America" and the dream it was, under Bush/Cheney civil liberties became secondary and Obama/Biden has done nothing to restore justice.

If we in the US isn't careful we'll start blaming our countries problems on the poor/sick/gay, which is only one step away from rounding up groups and shipping them off in rail cars.

Re:End of America (5, Funny)

genner (694963) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842370)

This is just another sad statement showing the "End of America" and the dream it was, under Bush/Cheney civil liberties became secondary and Obama/Biden has done nothing to restore justice. If we in the US isn't careful we'll start blaming our countries problems on the poor/sick/gay, which is only one step away from rounding up groups and shipping them off in rail cars.

Effective use of mass transit in this counry. I don't think so.

Re:End of America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842530)

For mass transit to be effective, you need to have a sufficeint mass of people all needing transit to/from the same place.

Me, I very much prefer the distance to my nearest neighbor to be measured in miles (bonus points if there are two positive digits to the left of the decimal point) not in feet or inches. Mass transit for me means three people in the cab of the pickup.

Re:End of America (4, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842696)

Have you ever noticed the "WHOOSH"ing sound mass transit vehicles make?

in 2008, FEMA ordered 102K boxcars /w shackles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842862)

http://pimpinturtle.com/2008/02/01/fema-ordered-102000-boxcars-with-shackles.aspx [pimpinturtle.com]

Explain this one, being able to move 20 million prisoners easily from one area to the next, while only 5 million at the most are confined to prisons at the moment. Where were the other 15 million prisoners to come from if not to move the 5 million prisoners already in confinement?

The administrative bodies of government are controlling the news media as much as possible, because every scrrew they turn in the caskette known as America will cause mass rioting from all-collars of the workforce, and we don't know this could have already happened and not covered by the media because they have become increasingly efficient at this kind of regulation.

Americans should be burning not only the Whitehouse like what the Brittish did in 1812, but every House held by Congressmen and Senators and Legislators and Judiciaiaries and even the CEO's of all the corporations ranging from Federal Reserve System to Walmart and Goldman Sachs and Apple. Burn everything, for expecticing America to compete with slave labor from around the world and depriving Americans of their own manufacturing self-sufficiency to enrich theirselves and their own quality of life in their own coutnry rather than be expected to bail-out and feed the timid slaves under capitalistic communist-dictators playing chess through the IMF.

Re:End of America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842886)

hey they won't run on time, and they'll be over budget, and a month into the project they'll have to stop to redesign the whole thing, but when they're done they'll be the most advanced mass transit cars in the world, cost a hundred million each, and will promptly be stolen by chinese spies and built for $10 there.

Re:End of America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842632)

Ah, but we no longer have to argue whether we're a democracy or a representative republic. We're fascists!

Re:End of America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842750)

If we in the US isn't careful we'll start blaming our countries problems on the illegal immigrants, which is only one step away from rounding up groups and shipping them off in rail cars.

There fixed it for you. Basically, US businesses love when Mexicans come into the country illegally, so they are easy to exploit. Then they round them up, 5, 10, 20 at a time and those get shipped off back to Mexico. It keeps the slaves in order and the wages low.

goahoiuewjlkqc ass (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842400)

Nobody the wha it????? ass

Read the decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842424)

Please, read the full decision [multiven.com] . The justice appears to get very angry at the U.S. Justice Department, which apparently colluded with Cisco and failed to adequetly represent all of the facts to the RCMP and in turn the Canadian judge who issued the arrest warrant. It's yet another horrifying sign of the current state of the US government.

No rubber stamping of extradition! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842430)

Thank God for Canada. This case illustrates exactly why the trend internationally to reduce the role of the courts in extradition to mere rubber stamping is so dangerous (for eg, the EAW and the removal of the need for a prima facie case to be made to the responding court in new extradition treaties).

Bureaucrats have long viewed the need for anything other than a simple request for extradition to be produced to the other country as an annoying inconvenience and, arguing that extradition is merely an 'administrative' and not a criminal procedure, have secured changes in the law in some countries. But how can anything resulting in the removal of someone's freedom *not* be a criminal procedure? Were it not for the fact that some civil law states in Europe absolutely refuse to hand over their own citizens to any other State (I suppose with the exception of within the EU under the EAW), we would rapidly be heading towards a world where any government hands over any person to any other government on flimsy grounds. This is the case already between certain countries.

Re:No rubber stamping of extradition! (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842456)

I'm surprised They didn't just have him extraordinarily rendered - while speaking of a world where governments collude in the capture of persons while ignoring due process.

Indeed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842486)

The existance otherwise by name and social securiy number Barak Hessian Obama II reserves by
Secret Executive Order the right to murder any and all human beings who stand to oppose his
omnipotence and total domain over all peoples, all governments and all laws of Earth.

banana (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842514)

banana republics behave like banana republics, welcome to the USA.

So how is the US better than China now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842600)

So how is the US better than China now?

Seems to me that they're both ok places to live, with good points and bad points, that seem like just as reasonable place to live as any other, if you're actually living there.

Most people spend their lives working, finding a girlfriend, getting married, having children, and most people in either country don't find themselves arrested on a daily basis, so ordinary people in both places feel both places are entirely reasonable places to live.

Re:So how is the US better than China now? (0)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842814)

Most people spend their lives working, finding a girlfriend, getting married, having children

Not in one of those countries they don't.

My favorite comments about Cisco (3, Funny)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842734)

Cisco - you can buy better, but you can't pay more.

Highway sign - US Interstate 70 in Utah, exit 214 says:

Cisco

No Services

Well played (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842764)

In these sorts of cases, where the defendant (Cisco in this case) has to resort to character bashing to salvage their legal position, someone will end up getting egg on their face for playing the part of the thug. In many cases, this ends up being US law enforcement or the justice department. But here, it appears that with the assistance of our INS, they managed to move this onto Canadian soil. And they made the RCMP look like the heavy.

Thankfully, the judge saw through this and threw out the extradition request. And it appears that Adekeye has won his civil case. But let this be a lesson for other foreign jurisdictions. The US is always looking for some dumbshit to do their bidding and take the fall. Better to consider this before even signing the treaty, let alone rubber stamping the paperwork.

Unsurprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36842772)

If you've ever had the misfortune of encountering Cisco in a legal capacity, none of this is particularly surprising.

You think this is bad (2)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842806)

Corporations are not individuals, do not behave like them, and, most importantly, are not governed like them. Corporations can get away with things that would send away individuals permanently. This case is mice nuts compare to other corporate actions (e.g. News Corp.) and will not even be a footnote once corporations are automated. We are still in the early stages, but software that manages schedules, meetings, agendas, and corporate policies will eventually create a corporate consciousness that will be self preserving. Imagine you could create a new being that is not governed by the same rules as humans. Frankenstein was a novice by comparison.

FBI corruption investigation? (1)

MasaMuneCyrus (779918) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842864)

Does anybody know the FBI stance on this? Despite some shady things done in the War on Drugs front, the FBI is actually pretty good about investigating corruption of even the very highest political elite.

Never Buy Cisco Again (1)

cc_pirate (82470) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842906)

I know that I, and I hope that everyone else on this board, will never buy a Cisco product again.

EVER.

In fact, I will go out of my way to make sure that all of my friends in the tech industry NEVER EVER BUY their stuff AGAIN.

And I know a lot of folks who buy a lot of network equipment.

Cisco, you are evil with a capital E.

Adekeye Needs to Submit a Complaint (1)

cc_pirate (82470) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842932)

Peter needs to submit a complaint to the California bar, because the corporate counsel that signed off on these actions need to be disbarred for ethical malfeasance.

Actually, they need to be in jail, but disbarred is probably the best that can be done.

Disbarment (1)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36842996)

Who can initiate disbarment proceedings against the Cisco lawyers involved? Clearly this was planned and executed by attorneys. I would think that having to defend themselves against loosing their professional status might get their attention. The judgment document from the Canadian court seems like it would contain all the information someone would need to get started.

Can anyone initiate a complaint? Cisco is in California, so that seems to be the logical place to see if this can be done. Any lawyers out there who have a clue about this?

A text for young lawyers... (1)

brindafella (702231) | more than 3 years ago | (#36843032)

> The full judgement [multiven.com] (PDF) is quite readable and damning.

Yes, it is well written, and readable. Justice McKinnon deserves applause for clarity, and common sense.

Quite a text for young lawyers on both sides of the 49th parallel.

The coverage in the "lower 48" seemed a bit thin, though... until now. :-)

What a pity that an honest businessman and his family have suffered over a year of separation and distress; for what? ...the Justice's point!

computer fraud and abuse act strikes again (4, Insightful)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36843040)

the CFAA (18 USC 1030) was the law they attempted to use against Adekeye

this law is seriously flawed and possibly unconstitutional.

Lori Drew, Thomas Drake, Peter Adekeye, George Hotz, all of them allegedly violated it. What kind of law outlaws such a broad range of things?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?