There is no excuse for it, no matter what the company did this affects the customers of the company just as hard as it affects the company. Likely some of those will go out of business, people will lose their jobs, go bankrupt.

That's the smallest thing I've ever seen "too big to fail" applied to.

The company could very well still fail, and no matter how large they are their customers should never rely on their provider not failing to the point where they themselves will also fail if something drastic were to happen to their provider.

But that does not mean that a single individual can put themselves in the judge, jury and executioner role all at once without any kind of oversight, that's at best a misguided case of vigilantism and at worst an act that is disproportionate against innocent bystanders and possibly a far larger crime than whatever happened before.

So do whistle blowers. That line of reasoning doesn't set the bar for what's right and wrong.

Are you sure no matter what the company did? What if the CEO threatened the ex-admins family? Or if the ex-admin found child porn on the CEOs computer?

There's a fine line between right and wrong in most situations. The most egregious acts of disobedience can be seen as defiance or foolish. It's not for you to decide- especially when there isn't any context to this whole situation.

> So do whistle blowers.

This is not a whistleblowing case, it is a case of wanton destruction by a former employee.

> That line of reasoning doesn't set the bar for what's right and wrong.

Dragging in all kinds of stuff that has no bearing on the case doesn't set the bar either.

> Are you sure no matter what the company did?

Yep.

> What if the CEO threatened the ex-admins family? > Or if the ex-admin found child porn on the CEOs computer?

In that case you go to the police and file a report with them. Hurting the company, the employees and customers when your target is the CEO is ineffective and illegal besides.

> There's a fine line between right and wrong in most situations.

No, it's crystal clear that this was wrong in any way you would like to look at it.

> The most egregious acts of disobedience can be seen as defiance or foolish. It's not for you to decide- especially when there isn't any context to this whole situation.

This is a criminal act, pure and simple. If the CEO did anything illegal this guy/girl is an idiot for doing something illegal himself.

I think this one would qualify as a criminal move, not just a dick move

Well, I’m guessing it starts with rationalization of why it is not criminal, and how you’re so smart that it won’t be traceable. Wrong on both counts, usually, but that’s my guess.