Slashdot Log In
Russian Agency Charges FBI Agent With Hacking
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Aug 16, 2002 01:53 AM
from the house-rules dept.
from the house-rules dept.
eNonymous Coward writes "An FBI agent who helped lure two Russian 'hackers' to the USA in 2000 so that they could be arrested is now being charged with hacking himself by the Russian FSB. You might remember that Gorshkov and Ivanov exploited an NT vulnerability to steal information from corporate networks, which was then used to extort money from the companies; they're also accused of being behind the CDUniverse and Western Union credit card database thefts. Last year a federal judge ruled that the FBI's action was legal, but the FSB disagrees."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Russian Agency Charges FBI Agent With Hacking
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 386 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I guess... (Score:4, Funny)
Appropriate Punishment? (Score:5, Funny)
Tit for Tat (Score:2, Funny)
Legality (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Legality (Score:4, Informative)
The case appears to be before Judge Coughenour, a federal judge sitting in Seattle. During the course of a typical case, judges routinely have to rule on federal and state legal issues that come up. On federal law questions, the judge looks primarily to the past decisions by the US Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
For state law issues, Judge Coughenour has to apply and abide by past rulings of the Washington State courts, and especially its Supreme Court.
For a specific example, the Russian defendants can claim rights under both the 4th Amendment to the US Constition and similar provisions of the Washington Constition against unreasonable search and seizures. You may have more (or fewer) rights under your state constitution than you do under the Federal. Coughenor would look to federal precedents to decide the federal issue and look to state precedents to decide the Washington state issue.
If the Russians think that Coughenor gets either the state or federal issues wrong, they can appeal to a higher Federal Court of Appeals and on the state law issue, there is a process for the Court of Appeals to ask the Washington Supreme Court for their opinion.
On the issue of who wins the dispute over whether the FBI agent broke Russian law, there is no single answer. If the Russian courts ultimately decide the FBI agent broke their laws, they can convict him and sentence him to prison. Their problem is getting hold of the FBI agent to put him on trial in the first place. Don't look for a U.S. Court to order that a Russian extradition request for the FBI agent be honored. This case should make a nice final exam question for "Conflicts of Law" courses in lots of US law schools next May.
Interesting! (Score:1)
Next time gadget... (Score:1)
So their program contributed to their own demise. It's a sad story.
Next time I write a sniffer program, I'll have to remember to ignore my own IP address (:
Re:Next time gadget... (Score:5, Interesting)
What is interesting, is that those hacker had "no expectation of privacy" according to US judge. Does it implies that in US you have no expectation of privacy when using computer at work, public library or internet kiosk?
Wouldn't they need to arrest him in russia? (Score:1)
It seems like the Russians blew their chance at arresting him by announcing it to the press.
Good news (Score:4, Insightful)
A crime, is a crime, is a crime, and should be solved officially. Stealing data is just a normal crime, also if it is done by FBI.
Re:Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Crime and morility is a lot of fun, eh? Let's play some more.
When is spying on someone legal vs. illegal?
Or a variation on that...
When is wiretapping someone legal vs. illegal?
When is killing someone legal vs illegal?
When is destroying other's property legal vs. illegal?
When can you use a shotgun on another person and when is it illegal?
Are glass bullets ever legal?
When is it "taking a prisoner" and when is it "kidnapping"?
When is it a "military operation" and when is it "terrorism"?
Sometimes it is difficult to put a single label on the same action in all situations. And thus enters politics, propoganda, extremists, and general disagreements.
The Scope of International Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, it sounds good to set up these little questions, but actually every single one is answered by well-defined law. Of course, in each case, it's only the former ("OK") category when the action complies with the existing law within the jurisdiction of the agent committing the act. Usually, in international affairs, there is no defining jurisdiction -- and therefore, the action is not "OK".
That's why the Bush administration's go-our-own-way, knee-jerk unilateralism is a Bad Thing. The United States has spent 50 years helping craft an international environment that handled many of the cases offered above -- and, overwhelmingly, handled them in a way favorable to both the narrow interests of the United States and, amazingly, to the cause of human dignity and freedom.
Now that we're the world's sole military superpower, and darn near the world's sole economic superpower, Bush & Co. think we can ride roughshod over the international agreements that form that framework. (And we're not talking Kyoto or ICC -- they've played pretty fast-and-loose with the Geneva Convention, too.) With no defining jurisdiction agreed between sovereign nations, each feels justified to do whatever it wants. Ironically, with no defining jurisdiction agreed between sovereign nations, none actually are justified.
When you undermine the idea of international law, you make everyone into vigilantes. As a die-hard American patriot, it pains me to see my country turning into a "rogue state".
Just a comment on something... (Score:2)
Of course, this isn't entrapment in the slightest. (Score:5, Insightful)
It surprises me, though, that you have two very good hackers, and neither of them thought to err on the side of caution and check the computers they were working on for such things...
Re:Of course, this isn't entrapment in the slighte (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is a crock of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
Go look up the fourth amendment. It doesn't say 'residents'. In fact, neither 'resident' nor 'citizen' occurs in the bill of rights [cornell.edu] - referred to instead are 'people'. This entire notion that the bill of rights doesn't apply to foreigners is sheer fabrication - but one we've seen a lot of recently and one I sadly predict we'll be seeing a lot more of before things get better...
Re:Which is a crock of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the kind of situation that consititutional law professors like to assign as term papers. I don't think it's ever been totally settled, and the interpretation of when "people" is applied generically, and when the term means "citizen" only is settled.
That said, what the FBI did still sucks on an ethical basis.
This is what it all comes to (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what it all really comes to. Does US have the right to make it's agents untouchable to other countries laws? What if this had happened the other way around? (US criminals, Russia agents arrest them and hack to their computers.)
FBI does what it does (Score:1)
Re:FBI does what it does (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is that normally if FBI wants to do any operation in other country, it had to cooperate with that country officials. If they just come to another country, and do a search without obtaining search permit from that country's officials, that would be a crime.
As you rightfully mentioned, just becuase it involves computers and not drug traffiking/dealing does not make it much different - FBI performing illigal search in other country [Russia] and hacking computers in Russia without obtaining permit from Russian court was commiting a crime. Pretty straightforwrd, is not it?
Interesting case (Score:5, Informative)
Michael was back at the office downloading data from their computers like mad while they took them to lunch.
The russians were very chatty, too chatty for their own good. IIRC they had something like 350 pages (an entire binder) of transcribed conversations with them. As is usual, the "hackers" were tooting their own horns.
I was called as a witness in the case to testify to data they had recovered and statements the russians had made. The russians had lied about the level of access they had. However, these people were very persistent, they spent a month or so just learning and tinkering trying to get a relatively small amount of data.
It's clear what their motives where though. They were stealing credit cards, setting up Ebay auctions and using proxy PayPal accounts to pay themselves for Ebay auctions they had setup themselves.
I got to learn how serious Paypal takes "hackers" and abuse. Both paypal and ebay (now the same) have dedicated professionals to tracking down "hackers" and fraud.
Oh, what a tangled web... (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it: the "sting" was under US jurisdiction as far as the physical location of the agents and the operation, so peeking at the records might be allowed. However, the hoovered computer was in Russia, so Russian laws apply to those efforts as well.
The what might help is to visualise what the non-computer version would be. Say the data in the US is a perfect fax of the Russian originals: did the agents "break and enter" into a data warehouse with forged keys, or did they trick the warehouse into voluntarily sending the copies? If the method in which these copies were obtained is illegal in Russia, are they still admissible in the US as evidence?
It's way too complicated, and I have no idea how I should feel about it.
did you notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you also notice the fact Russian law does not apply the federal agents hacking Russian computers, but clearly US law applies to Russians hacking American computers?
This is disgusting...
reminds me of.... (Score:1)
Scary Tacticts (Score:1)
Whose law should apply? (Score:5, Interesting)
The alternative (the one the Russian FSB [Federal Security Bureau], formerly known as KGB [Committee for State Security]) and certain French censorship judges want is that you are somehow subject to all laws combined - which is a horrible mess. Is this post subject to UK law? (I'm in the UK ATM) Or US? (US server) Or Canadian (accessable from Canada) - in which case it should probably be translated into French as well?
This seems simple to me: when in country X, you are subject to the laws of country X. Everybody else should STFU: I will not accept French, Russian or for that matter Taleban laws as applicable in any way except on their own soil. Hell, if the former KGB considers the FBI's investigation illegal, imagine how illegal the CIA spying on the USSR is - or those spy satellites Boeing and Lockheed make?
I don't see what the problem is here (Score:2, Funny)
russian law (Score:2, Insightful)
And then the judge tells us russian law does not apply? And the American Constitution does not apply?
What's going on. If I live in a foreign (non US) country, I wont have any rights. Not the rights of my country and not the rights of the US.
Do I still have my basic human rights?
Search warrant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me? Is there *any* legal basis for that? You only need apply for a search warrant after you've confiscated all the material you need if you think the bad guys might try to cover their tracks?
Incidentally, if the FBI agents knew all along that they wanted to access this data, why didn't they apply for the search warrant before starting the whole sting operation?
one used to be able to say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's hope that other nations will help reign in the US law enforcement and legal system, for the benefit of everybody in the world.
Insert Cold War comment here (Score:1)
Which laws DO apply? (Score:5, Insightful)
He also found that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the computers, "because they are the property of a non-resident and located outside the United States," or to the data -- at least until it was transmitted to the United States.
and
Finally, Coughenour rejected defense arguments that the FBI's actions "were unreasonable and illegal because they failed to comply with Russian law," saying that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions.
That sounds scarily close to saying "US Law doesn't apply to our actions" and "Russian Law doesn't apply to our actions" so we'll do whatever we damned like...
a grrl & her server [danamania.com]
hum.. (Score:1)
Tell ya what, Russia... (Score:2)
I'm sorry, it must be all that pure grain alcohol and rain water getting to me.
irony (Score:2)
The law can't break the law to uphold the law... (Score:1, Funny)
no epectation of privacy.. (Score:2, Insightful)
ie. have we no expectation of privacy when using a computer on a network/ sending information over a computer network? knowing that a sysadmin could sniff the information? weak argument at best.
something is rotten in the state of denma.. no.. usa
4th Amendment rules don't apply - Double Standards (Score:1)
It shows that the people in power in the USA do not believe in their own constitution, as they are always trying to sidestep its clauses.
Questionable Legality (Score:1)
Also the second thing that I saw that concerns me highly is the fact that these guys were using an exploit that M$ had patched. Now the companies that didn't update with this patch, knowingly left themselves open to the attacks. This to me is just foolish and I find these companies at fault as well since they knew they were open to attack.
There are several things about this I just didnt like. Of course this is all old news.
However with this FBI agent being accused of hacking by Russian officals has sparked issues. I find it funny that the posted MSNBC article talks briefly about the fact that Russia has charged an FBI agent and focus's more on the arrest of the two Russians. Of course the two are interlinked but from the reactions of the FBI and other departments of the US government, I am guessing not a damn thing is going to happen.
From what the articles say happened it just doesnt sound like procedure was followed and the FBI is in fault for removing or downloading data without proper authority.
ALthough I guess this is a pointless rants. I mean the US is going to do whatever it pleases, legally or not. Makes ya proud to me an American huh? *sighs*
wow (Score:1)
*shrugs*
FSB (Score:1)
For the truly adventurous, here's the FSB's home page [www.fsb.ru]
That's what I got on that link. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong number of arguments or invalid property assignment: 'instr'
No article.. ;(
...and then they came for me (Score:2)
and I did not speak out -- because I was not a cracker.
Then they came for the white hats [slashdot.org]
and I did not speak out -- because I was not a white hat.
Then they came for the file swappers [slashdot.org]
and I did not speak out -- because I was not a file swapper.
Then they came for me -- and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.
With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller
Ignorant Americans (Score:1)
Now to the FSB practices related to information. According to Russian laws, all ISPs have to implement a System for Operative Search Actions. Which basically means they have to provide network traffic and uncontrolled means of intercepting and invading any network activity that goes through them. In other words, FSB doesn't even have to get a warrant to read your mail, and the cost associated with these activities (ILLEGAL in USA) gets passed on you. You pay for your email being read by "men in gray".
Their charges against FBI agents (who did absolutely the right thing, IMO) are the worst case of hypocrisy I've seen in years.
*
FSB... (Score:1)
Yes, yes, I know: I really need to get out more...
(Which would be a common
Public APB database (Score:1)
Seriously, if they can give this sort of information to the most wanted guys, they surely can give it to not-so-much wanted, and least wanted, and unwanted.
Keystroke Logger Used (Score:1)
Advanced hacking techniques (Score:1)
Even *I* could use the BackOrifice keysniffer five years ago
What really happened... (Score:1)
Two individuals were invited to a foreign country and were given the opportunity to input whatever information they wanted into a computer. Said individuals accepted the invitation, and proceeded to type root passwords into that computer.
MEANWHILE...
Using information that had been typed directly into a computer it owned (in the old-fashioned sense), a government agency sent information to another computer in another country, and then recorded the information that was sent back to the first country by that computer. It used that information to try suspected criminals, which is a task with which Congress has charged it.
This a great thing that has happened. If the internet is in any danger, it is in danger from hegemonic governments' passing laws based on basic misunderstandings of what the internet is. The most basic misunderstanding is that the internet is anything other than a group of computers sending electronic signals to each other. I.e., that it is a "place", that it "belongs" to copyright holders, that it is responsible to do anything for anyone, etc. When an agency of the most hegemonic government acts in a refreshingly realistic way concerning the internet, that is a great thing.
There has never been any need for new laws to "address the internet". Fraud is fraud, and a webpage set up to mine unsuspecting lusers for credit card numbers would have been illegal 50 years ago. Logging in using a password you've obtained legally, abusing a poorly-designed protocol, using a program in ways that its writer did not intend, etc. should all be legal actions. Anything done to restrict these actions legislatively as opposed to technically will only hurt us in the long run. I see a glimmer of hope in the fact that the FBI has used the internet in a realistic manner. If we can use hypocrisy as another argument against all sorts of laws that we don't want or need, so much the better.
As an aside, it seems that there could be a question about whether the passwords were legally obtained. I assume this was addressed in the hearing, and the judge found it acceptable. My point is that once the passwords were legally obtained, it is ludicrous to claim that sending them to a computer in another country should be illegal.
later,
Jess
Re:I get only this... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:What Speed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I get only this... (Score:2)
Re:I get only this... (Score:2)
Can ANYONE view this article and if so can they post the contents? I even went through the main msnbc page and eventually just got a blank page.
Guess they don't like Mozilla.
Re:I get only this... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I get only this... (Score:2)
Guess you ahve to be 0wned by MS in order to view the article.
I can see with Mozilla (for M$ at least) (Score:4, Informative)
High-tech net snags hackers
By ALLISON LINN-- The Associated Press
SEATTLE (AP) -- Invita Security Corp. looked like a typical Internet company: It had offices, computers, employees and a secure computer system. The only thing missing was the customers.
Far from being a failed start-up, the aptly named Invita turned out to be a bogus company set up by the FBI to ensnare two young Russians accused of breaking into U.S. Internet companies' computers, stealing sensitive data and trying to extort money.
Authorities say Alexey Ivanov, 21, and Vasily Gorshkov, 25, both of Chelyabinsk, fell for the bait. They were arrested and jailed on charges including conspiracy and fraud and are set for trial May 29 in federal court in Seattle.
The FBI declined to comment. But in recently unsealed court documents that read like a spy novel, agents tell how they snagged the alleged thieves by creating the shell company and inviting Ivanov and Gorshkov to try to hack into it.
After Ivanov and Gorshkov succeeded from afar, FBI agents posing as Invita employees invited the two to Seattle to discuss a partnership and further display their hacking prowess.
As the Russians demonstrated their skills at the shell company, the FBI used a computer eavesdropping technique to reach across the Internet and break into the suspects' own computer system in Russia.
Internet security experts say the case illustrates well how the FBI's cybercrime-fighting abilities have evolved -- though the defense is questioning the legality of the agency's methods.
"What they did was phenomenal. It was exceptionally effective," says Kevin Mandia, who worked for the Air Force office of special investigations and taught FBI courses in hacker attacks before joining the Irvine, Calif., Internet security company Foundstone. "Five years ago they wouldn't be able to do that kind of thing."
Mandia says that the FBI, after being ridiculed as ill-equipped to fight computer crime, has made remarkable progress, including adding a program that has trained more than 1,000 agents in cybercrime.
The FBI believes the Russian suspects or their associates could have been involved in hundreds of crimes against U.S. companies, including Kirkland-based Lightrealm.com, an Internet access company, and Palo Alto, Calif.-based PayPal, an online payment business.
First, the FBI alleges, the hackers broke into computer systems. Then, authorities say, they sent e-mails to company officials demanding payment in exchange for not distributing or destroying sensitive documents including financial records.
After tracking down the suspects over the Internet, the FBI invited them to Seattle in November for the Invita gambit.
Court records show that while Gorshkov was using an Invita computer, the FBI secretly used a "sniffer" program that logs every keystroke a person types.
Using passwords recorded by the "sniffer," the FBI was then able to enter the computers in Russia where Gorshkov kept his data and download immense amounts of information.
In court documents, Gorshkov's lawyer, Kenneth E. Kanev, has challenged the FBI's right to use that material, claiming his client's privacy was invaded because he did not consent to have his computer usage recorded. Kanev contends the FBI should have obtained a search warrant before downloading the information.
The investigators say they were forced to follow this procedure because they needed to secure the incriminating information before the two suspects' Russian counterparts destroyed the data.
The Invita case could define how far U.S. law enforcement can go to catch non-citizens who break into American systems.
"This case is going to resolve a very thorny legal question," says Marc J. Zwillinger, a former Justice Department computer expert now in private practice in Washington.
The case could test the admissibility of evidence obtained through the covert recording of computer keystrokes, a technique the FBI also used in a case against an alleged mobster in New Jersey, Nicodemo S. Scarfo Jr., that is expected to go to trial later this year.
Today's most serious hacker threats come from outside the United States or go through computers abroad. Russian hackers, in particular, have been behind several of the biggest Internet theft cases.
Re:I get only this... (Score:1)
FBI agent charged with hacking
Russia alleges agent broke law by downloading evidence
By Mike Brunker
MSNBC
Aug. 15 -- In a first in the rapidly evolving field of cyberspace law, Russia's counterintelligence service on Thursday filed criminal charges against an FBI agent it says lured two Russian hackers to the United States, then illegally seized evidence against them by
downloading data from their computers in Chelyabinsk, Russia.
The case was the first in the FBI's history to 'utilize the technique of extra-territorial seizure.'
-- FBI PRESS RELEASE
IGOR TKACH, an investigator with Russia's Federal Security Service, or FSB, started criminal proceedings against FBI Agent Michael Schuler for unauthorized access to computer information, according to the Interfax news agency.
The agency reported the complaint had been forwarded to the U.S. Justice Department and that the FSB was awaiting a response.
The FBI said Thursday it had no comment on the case, and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment.
Interfax quoted sources with the FSB as describing the criminal complaint as an effort to restore traditional law enforcement borders.
"If the Russian hackers are sentenced on the basis of information obtained by the Americans through hacking, that will imply the future ability of U.S. secret services to use illegal methods in the collection of information in Russia and other countries," the news agency quoted one source as saying.
RUSE WAS WIDELY PRAISED
Schuler and other agents were widely praised for an elaborate ruse that led to the arrests of Vasily Gorshkov, 25, and Alexey Ivanov, 20, in November 2000. Court papers described the men as kingpins of Russian computer crime who hacked into the networks of at least 40 U.S. companies and then attempted to extort money.
The pair was lured to the United States after Ivanov identified himself in an e-mail threatening to destroy data at a victimized company, Stephen Schroeder, a now-retired assistant U.S. attorney in Seattle who prosecuted Gorshkov, told MSNBC.com last year.
FBI agents then found Ivanov's resumé online and, posing as representatives of a fictitious network security company called Invita, contacted him to offer him a job.
Once Ivanov and Gorshkov arrived in Seattle, agents posing as Invita officials asked the men to demonstrate their prowess on a computer outfitted with "sniffer" software to record every keystroke. After arresting the men, the agents used account numbers and passwords obtained by the program to gain access to data stored on the pair's computers in Russia.
Fearing that an associate would "pull the plug" on the computer in Russia, the agents downloaded evidence before obtaining a search warrant, according to court papers.
AGENTS HONORED
In a news release issued last week honoring Agents Schuler and Marty Prewett with the director's award for excellence, the FBI's field office in Seattle said the case was the first in the the bureau's history to "utilize the technique of extra-territorial seizure." The procedures employed by the agents had been incorporated into the attorney general's guidelines for law enforcement personnel, it said.
Court papers allege that Ivanov and Gorshkov broke into and obtained financial information from a number of large U.S. companies and penetrated the computer networks of two banks -- the Nara Bank of Los Angeles and Central National Bank-Waco, based in Texas.
They also were accused of orchestrating "a massive scheme" to defraud the Internet-based payment company PayPal, based in Palo Alto, Calif., by using "proxy" e-mail addresses from such institutions as public schools and stolen credit-card numbers to buy goods.
Prosecutors have indicated they also believe the Russians are linked to two other high-profile cases: the theft of data on 300,000 credit cards from the CD Universe Web site and another
15,700 credit cards from a Western Union Web site.
Gorshkov was convicted in Seattle in September 2001 of 20 counts of wire fraud, charges that carry a maximum sentence of 100 years in prison. Sentencing was scheduled for January, but court records do not reflect that a punishment had been imposed.
Ivanov also has been indicted in New Jersey and Connecticut, where he currently is in custody and awaiting trial.
In pretrial motions, Gorshkov's lawyer, Kenneth Kanev, argued that the FBI agents had violated Gorshkov's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure by secretly obtaining passwords and account numbers.
But U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour of Seattle ruled that Gorshkov and Ivanov gave up any expectation of privacy by using computers in what they believed were the offices of a public company.
NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
"When (the) defendant sat down at the networked computer
He also found that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the computers, "because they are the property of a non-resident and located outside the United States," or to the data -- at least until it was transmitted to the United States.
The judge noted that investigators obtained a search warrant before viewing the vast store of data -- nearly 250 gigabytes, according to court records. He rejected the argument that the warrant should have been obtained before the data was downloaded, noting that "the agents had good reason to fear that if they did not copy the data, (the) defendant's co-conspirators would destroy the evidence or make it unavailable."
Finally, Coughenour rejected defense arguments that the FBI's actions "were unreasonable and illegal because they failed to comply with Russian law," saying that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions.
NT VULNERABILITY EXPLOITED
Ivanov, Gorshkov and other unidentified associates used the Internet to gain illegal access to the U.S. companies' computers, often by exploiting a known security vulnerability in Windows NT, according to court papers. A "patch" for the vulnerability had been posted on the Microsoft Web site for almost two years, but the companies hit by the cyberbandits hadn't updated their software.
(MSNBC is a Microsoft-NBC joint venture.)
At least one company, Lightrealm Communications of Kirkland, Wash., acceded to a demand that it hire Ivanov as a security consultant after he broke into the Internet service provider's computers, according to court documents. Ivanov then used a Lightrealm account to break into other companies' computers, they indicated.
Eastern Europe and nations of the former Soviet Union have become a hotbed for computer crime aimed at businesses in the United States and other Western nations.
When MSNBC.com first reported on the problem of overseas computer crime in 1999, Mark Batts, the special agent in charge of the FBI's Financial Institution Fraud Unit, said he was not aware of any prosecutions of credit card thieves operating from Eastern Europe and the nations of the former Soviet Union.
Re:Abductions... (Score:1)
After that, if you happen to have a beard they will dress you up in red prison clothes, stick you out in the sun in Guantanamo Bay and wait for you to die.
Re:Abductions... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Considering how the Cuban boy was treated can you really expect the US to do much about abducted children?