[Daniel_Newby]

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.

[antiterra]

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

Ok, Stalin / Kaczynski.

[wnight]

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.

[antiterra]

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.

[wnight]

> 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.