Judge OKs FBI Hack Of Russian Computers 135
SilentChris writes: "A U.S. judge recently ruled that the FBI could obtain hackers' passwords and data, through the use of sniffer programs, despite the hackers being overseas. A couple of notes: the judge ruled the hackers should have had "no expectation of privacy" when they sat down to the (covert) FBI terminals, and the investigators needed a warrant to view the data -- but they didn't need one to copy it."
Easy to get around (Score:1)
Interesting... no law applied? (Score:1)
Quote 2:
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.
I'm sorry but I see a problem here. It would seem that either US law or Russian law would apply here. If neither applies, then how have these hackers "broken the law"?
It seems like the FBI got to pick and choose the laws they wanted to enforce and follow and the judge supported them.
Obtaining a warrant after copying the evidence seems not only irregular but probably not legal.
how about...? (Score:2)
or walk into my house, but keep your eyes close without a warrant?
etc...
how about you kiss my ass, and try not to taste it without a warrant!
Re:Interesting implications.. (Score:2)
Another possible reversal (Score:2)
Another possible reversal in this can be used by Russians' defense lawyers -- Russians themselves can claim that they didn't "view" the data either, and just wanted to use it as a proof to the company where they "stole" it that their server was vulnerable and required fixing, so there was no no actual intent to commit a crime to begin with.
BTW, in this particular case it may even be true -- guys most likely just wanted to get a good-paying computer security/sysadmin job in their "victim" company and "stolen" the data to demonstrate that their job was needed, "victims" got offended and asked FBI, then FBI interpreted it as a blackmail and started all the spin about "terrorists" and "mafia".
Re:Expectation and Immunity not fairly applied (Score:2)
Barbed wire is perfectly legal, traps designed to injure intruders, such as electrified door handles etc are not.
Similarly, an injured trespasser might possibly bring a civil action for damages if he can demonstrate that you have unsafe premises. The classic example is a child trespassing on a construction site and being injured by improperly secured building materials. An adult trespasser half-drowning themselves in a swimming pool would not have much chance of winning such an action.
On a separate note, and perhaps pertaining more to the topic at hand, wire tap evidence is inadmissable in UK courts, and entrapment by law enforcement officers is unlawful - if entrapment can be demonstrated by the defence, the case will be usually be thrown out.
Thats bad... (Score:2)
Possible exciting career. (Score:1)
Has anyone found any other (human) languages that have helped them get jobs in the tech industry?
I'm not sure I like the idea of being prying eyes, but the FBI could be an exciting tech job if nothing else.
-Peter
Re:Is it? (Score:1)
Re:Can Copy But Not View? (Score:1)
Re:Interesting implications.. (Score:1)
Jack , your 05/21 comments (Score:1)
BTW nice web page
That's not the least of it. (Score:3)
Anyhow, to do that, she had to fill out some sort of application. Apparently, when she missed a couple of fields on the application, the person processing it did a quick search, and asked, "Were you born in Edmonton?"
My friend, understandably, was rather shocked, but said yes, she was.
The Americans already have a ton of data on Canadian citizens. I don't think my friend was really exceptional: eighteen at the time, a student, just out of high school. Despite being fairly average in most respects, they had all her basic information, and only who knows what else (maybe the fact that she's got some rather strong left-wing views? who knows).
I'm not a paranoid person. I don't have anything to hide, but at the same time, there's something a little worrisome about all this. Oh, and about your e-mail? Chances are that they've already archived it.
Re:hypocrisy at its finest (Score:1)
Re:Can Copy But Not View? (Score:1)
Well, by the same token you don't really have an expectation of privacy when using an unencrypted cell phone on the public airwaves, but you can still get in trouble for scanning them anyway. We just need our already wacky laws to catch up to the Internet...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Re:International Law (Score:2)
I totally agree, and in fact it's even worse - if you're committing "police actions" on the soil of another nation, you're really breaching that nation's sovereignty - in a certain sense this is an act of war. Which makes sense, because the only way you can really be assured of enforcing certain laws in a place which doesn't acknowledge them is to effectively take control of the application of law in that area.
In the end this is just the ugliest of a long line of ugly-Americanisms (and I speak as a U.S. citizen myself). Maybe if we weren't so damn arrogant half the time, the rest of the world would have a little more respect for the other half of the time when the U.S. gets preachy. Talk about your bipolar disorders :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Re:typical (Score:2)
P.S.: Don't expect Russia to object unless the FBI stepped on their corns. They also are a centralized authority, and will only act to preserve their centrality (which includes power, image, social status, etc.)
P.P.S: You might try to trace down your exact definition of justice, and where you obtained it. It can be quite an interesting search.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Oi... (Score:2)
And I am quite suspicious of your other rationalizations. Not that it matters.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Expectation and Immunity not fairly applied (Score:1)
Here in the UK, we have stupid laws like barbed wire fences are almost illegal and if I have 10m fences around my pool (or any other, what I would call reasonable safety measures) and someone breaks in and drowns it's my fault!
I happen to think that the FBI hackers were right. I'm tired of criminals trying to claim that their individual rights can supercede a vitim of crime's rights during the committing of a crime.
I'm not saying the FBI should have carte blanch; get a warrent (or whatever) and then do "the search". Looking for evidence doesn't have to be done in person does it?
However, if a personal search for evidence was required overseas, the US would surely have sought the cooperation of the native law enforcement autorities wouldn't they? Did that happen here?
Craig.
Re:Is it? (Score:1)
Who let the dogs out (Score:2)
I can't see why they just didn't go into Russia and haul them and their machines out. The precedent was set in Panama.
Re:Nice logic (Score:3)
That is, in essence, exactly what he ruled. You can't enter evidence that was illegally obtained, therefore the judge considers this legal. Since they did violate a Russian law, they must not be subject.
they had no reasonable expectation to Fourth Amendment privacy.
Several people have brought that up... I don't see what that has to do with anything (other than that it was mentioned in the article.) So they have no expectation, fine. The FBI knows what their password is. That gives them no right to *use* it, though. You can bet that if I shoulder-surf someone's password when they are using my machine, and then use their password to get into their account, I'd be arrested. I'd be charged with illegal possesion of an access device (the password) and computer trespassing (no permission to be on that machine.)
Nice logic (Score:5)
I hope the FBI agents don't fall for the "lure them into Russia and arrest them" trick.
Re:Read the article please (Score:1)
<sarcasm>Hey, if you're on the street and you're going somewhere, I've got a "reasonable" suspicion that you're going to do something illegal. Therefore, I can search you. If you're in your own house and you leave for work one minute late, I've got a "reasonable" suspicion that you're destroying evidence. If you travel to work using anything other than your usual route, I've got a "reasonable" suspicion that you're hiding something. </sarcasm>
Careful, but if you aren't applying a rigorous interpretation of "unreasonable", you're opening the door to a police state.
And yes, all of those searches did in fact happen in the former USSR, a police state. It was considered completely reasonable if you diverted one iota from your normal schedule.
About time. (Score:5)
Very smart move. If possible, I would like to congratulate the judge for his wise decision in person.
You see, America's traditional values are being completely laughed at by the commies. In the past, there was fun, pro-market hacking. That happy situation changed when access to the U.S. Online Network was opened to development countries. Teenage commies and their relatives now have the opportunity to put in risk our way of life, the safety of our children, and everything else we fought for over hundreds of years, by displaying offensive and satanic material over the Internet. It is something that abhores me and my family.
These soviet hackers are a direct threat to the safety of your family. Don't let them takeover America. Support foreign prosecution of hackers.
--
Re:Thats bad... (Score:1)
these people were criminals, and the FBI is only protecting soceity.
EXECPT..... I'm not an US citizen. I, and the rest of the world DO NOT WANT the FBI to break the
laws of other countries in their own self interest.
You know, I don't give a damn what people in the US do in their own country. I would fight to the
death if it came to it, to stop the US doing it in my country.
It's accurate. (Score:2)
So poop brown is a pretty good choice of colors for anything law-related.
Re:If not US or Russian law, when what laws apply? (Score:2)
I think what Judge Coughenour is saying is that yes, the FBI agents' actions were against Russian law, but that that was something for the Russian cops to investigate/charge/bust 'em for, and the Russian courts to sentence 'em for, not the FBI.
Which is to say, if you're an FBI agent cracking Russian computers, stay out of Russia. (Well, unless your name is Robert Phillip Hannsen and you're a mole working for the Russians ;-)
Re:If not US or Russian law, when what laws apply? (Score:2)
It appears so. (I'm not saying it's a good precedent either, but...)
> So what happens when the russian cops file extredition papers with the US state depertment, to extradite the FBI agents who commmitted these crimes? Do you think they'd be honored? Sounds like an international incident waiting to happen.
Sounds like a calculated risk, one the FBI was willing to take. Knowing the FBI, they probably never bothered to check, but I'm sure a phone call to the Department of State would have clarified things pretty quickly: "No, they probably won't charge you, and if they do, we'll smooth it out for you."
Re:Whose Law Applies? (Score:1)
ah, but only US law actually counts. All other laws from other countries are conspiracy to overthrow the USA's leadership-role in human rights and free trade. As an american, you cannot be arrested for breaking other country's laws. If they do anyway, they're wrong and we will start tradesanctions, to help them see the error of their ways before they hurt american business.
//rdj
If you think that's bad... (Score:2)
typical (Score:2)
Judges would likely favor anything LEA's have to say to them in order to make their (the Fed's) case easier. The same applies to the case where the feds placed a keystroke logger on a mobster's pc. Sure the mobster sent information which were supposed to be a client attorney priveledge, but the it still didn't matter.
See what happens with technology, is judges, most lawyers, shit even the many in the FBI don't understand it, so many LEA's will pull strings, or distort things so out of proportion most judges, and DA's will simply think Big Brother is being honest about it all, and they sign warrants, etc.
In all fairness sure the FBI should have arrested the guys, but by breaking into their computers, they're no better than the Russian hackers themselves, by any means. Who gave them the approval on the Russian side to do so? You can't have things single sided all the time, or its junk justice plain and simple. If you claim to play things by the book then play it by the book and respect law, not another Big Brother distortion of what's law, they didn't write it, and they sure don't follow it.
The Justice system in regards to comp crime is a joke, and with the EU signing those Cybercrime bills things will only get worse, as LEA's (law enforcement agencies for those unfamiliar) will manipulate the judiciary system in worse ways than ever.
Re:I Love It (Score:1)
Can Copy But Not View? (Score:2)
This is the sort of nonsense that arises when too many laws are created and when people are forced to abide only by the letter of the law. What is to prevent the FBI from viewing the copied data? Will they tell the judge about it if they do? Of course not. They'll view the data and if they find something interesting, they'll obtain a warrant after the fact.
Re:Nice logic (Score:2)
By nature, courts usually only administer the law of the jurisdiction to which they pertain. Evidence must be legally obtained, but there is no need for the judge to make sure it was legally obtained with respect to the laws of other countries, only the U.S.
Several people have brought that up... I don't see what that has to do with anything (other than that it was mentioned in the article.)
Well, if you break into an account of somebody in a foreign country with no U.S. associations, it is unlikely you'll be thrown in jail. The FBI did need a warrant to look at the information once in was on US soil, however. Civilians cannot obtain warrants.
Re:Nice logic (Score:1)
The judge did not rule that the FBI is not subject to Russian law, only that the evidence could not be excluded. Not being in the United States or operating on the private property of a U.S. citizen, they had no reasonable expectation to Fourth Amendment privacy. While they may have had some expectation of privacy according to Russian law, violation of an other nation's search and siezure regulations does not trigger the exclusionary rule (nor should it, since the exclusionary rule is meant to protect the integrity of the U.S. Constitution. Where the Constitution has no integrity, e.g., beyond U.S. sovereignty, such protection is unwarranted).
FBI agents could of course be arrested for their activities oversees, provided that said activities are not allowed by treaty or previous agreement, but this ruling says that the fruit of such activities is admissible as evidence in a U.S. court.
Re:Nice logic (Score:2)
The exclusionary rule is not as broad as you make it out to be. Evidence gained by a government agent or someone acting on its behalf (e.g., informants) in a way that violates U.S. Constitutional protection is inadmissible. While the FBI agents were most certainly government agents, non-citizens outside of U.S. sovereignty have no claim to Constitutional protection, and thus their Constitutional rights cannot be violated. If you are in an area in which the Constitution does not apply, you cannot claim the applicability of the U.S. Constitution.
While the FBI agents may have broken some Russian law, or what would have been an American law had it occurred on U.S. soil, they did not violate any Constitutional protections. Therefore, any evidence obtained, legal or not, is not subject to the exclusionary rule.
You're right: in this instance, reasonable expectation does not apply. A reasonable expectation of privacy is only relevent when there is a Fourth Amendment issue: one only needs a warrant to search areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy -- public spaces where such expectation is unreasonable are not so protected. In this case, however, there is no Fourth Amendment issue because the Constitution has no operative authority in Russia; hence reasonable expectation is not relevent.
Your example, however, is not so clear. Since you are not a government agent, reasonable expectation is not at issue, but let's assume you were. I don't believe the courts have ruled that I have a reasonable expectation to privacy when working on a public machine, but I don't think they've ruled that I haven't, either. You are correct, however, to note that the FBI would need to obtain a warrant to perform such an operation here; the court simply ruled that they aren't required to do so over there.
Re:I Love It (Score:1)
yeah (Score:2)
only truly insightful comment yet (Score:3)
Do you really think that they could do this any other way? Of course not, the evidence would most likely disappear before they could get their hands on it, just as the parent poster pointed out.
With that said, there is PLENTY of other things to complain about concerning the FBI. Personally, I would like to see the FBI, NSA, and CIA dissolved and create new organizations for the security of this nation, with input from the public and complete disclosure of how things will work. But please, complain about the things that are worth complaining about, in this case, the FBI was trying to do the right thing.
Re:juris my diction crap (Score:1)
FBI = Within the US (but not out)
CIA = Outside the US (but not in)
Re:Interesting implications.. (Score:2)
Read the article please (Score:4)
Second, the abnormal sequence of penetrate, copy, then get warrant, then read is reasonable by analogy to other warrant exceptions. After arresting someone the police are permitted to seize or protect items that might reasonably be expected to be destroyed during the wait for a warrant. It is like seizing the automobile of a fleeing suspect. You can't get the warrant in advance because you do not know what car will be used. So you seize the car at the time of arrest, then get the warrant, then inspect the car. This abnormal sequence shows such care, and is reasonable considering that knowledge of the arrests might quickly trigger destruction of data. Penetrate and copy must be done fast. Then they can wait for the warrant before reading.
The option of warrant before arrest was not reasonable because prior to the arrest they lacked sufficient information to identify what they wanted to seize. It would have been an unacceptably generic and wide ranging warrant.
I Love It (Score:2)
That's great. It's like making it legal to sell drugs, but illegal to use them.
Re:If not US or Russian law, when what laws apply? (Score:1)
f.
Re:Is it? (Score:1)
This in turn means if these men had been Americans, the whole FBI hack would have been illegal.
So, essentially, yes, you broke your own laws. Even if you found some judical weasel arguing "rules dont apply to bloody foreigners".
f.
Re:International Law (Score:1)
What about extradition? (Score:2)
Of course, this begs the question of whether Russia has any laws that would be applicable...
What you see when you login: (Score:5)
U.S. GOVERNMENT COMPUTER
If you are not authorized to access this
system, disconnect now.
YOU SHOULD HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
By continuing, you consent to your
keystrokes and data content
being monitored.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
--------------------------------------------
Re:juris my diction crap (Score:2)
Re:Is it? (Score:1)
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
Re:scary precedent-setting decision... (Score:1)
juris my diction crap (Score:4)
a) domestic
b) international
for those of you who guessed 'b' go watch Sneakers again, the FBI is only chartered for DOMESTIC surveillance.. Granted this isn't a true CIA type of operation but then again maybe it is. We aren't in the Cold War with Russia anymore because it doesn't exist! I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if this was a russian mob outfit. I wouldn't be suprised if these guys were incredibly guilty, however; I don't thing our offices have any f'scking clue as to how to deal with this kind of crime.
Fact is if it's an international problem we had a whole team (CIA) to deal with it and they were well versed on how to deal with international law. If Russia were still unified and had a ton of nuke's still pointed at us with a grim determination to preserve it's stance we would be scared shiteless right now.
Might doesn't make right, we have no right treating them as we are. the lowest common denominator needs to apply. What? No search and seizure protection in your country?? well we have it so by default it should apply to you guys.
Just wait until this same scenario happens an it's China on the other side, then GW will be over there pretending not to apologize while politely apologizing as our stealth recon planes scan to make sure a hailstorm of ICBM's aren't suddenly heading our way.
ne0 [mailto]
all your servers are belong to us!
Re:Turnabout is fair play (Score:1)
That was not the case here. They were not asked to demonstrate an illegal activity, they were asked to access their home computers for some reason (left them running while going to states? weird). By the way, isn't this kind of behaviour by FBI considered to be entrapment and is illegal in itself?
Perfect case against RIAA and DMCA and such (Score:2)
Re:Can Copy But Not View? (Score:2)
`cat ~/mp3/jackoffjill.mp3`
is NOT a pretty site...
Re:Bending things a little bit? (Score:2)
- If we allow law enforcement agencies to behave unlawfully, then we can go back to torturing prisoners and concentration camps: in the substance, there's no difference.
Normally, any Nazi reference is the quintessential end-of-discussion, but I'll respond anyway: when law enforcement agencies behave unlawfully, they are still held accountable. If the FBI hadn't been able to obtain the warrant, it would probably have been possible to sue the FBI for invasion of privacy. The fact that they did obtain the warrant proves that they did not behave inappropriately. The defendants will surely appeal if there is any doubt.- . But imagine borrowing a friend's car, then getting crashed into by a drunk truck driver. Should you not be guaranteed personal safety in spite of the car you're driving not being yours?
I don't see how that comparison works. Anyway, every company I've worked for has added the disclaimer that "this system is for business use only..." and can be monitored. I understand that what I do on that computer is not private. Don't argue that the FBI doesn't have similar disclaimers - I'm certain they are smarter than that.- Even if I have nothing to hide, the law enforcement ageny might think I had something to hide and do all sorts of nasty things to me, for example. And just because someone acts in a fashion that you (or the law enforcement agency) consider strange doesn't mean they've got something to hide, and this completely subjective notion should definitely not suffice for them to start hacking into my computer
Yeah, I definitely agree with you there, and don't worry - you're still safe from that type of inspection. Past rulings have shown that, for example, it's not legal to create a blockade a street on New Year's Eve to stop and check for drunk drivers. If you have the expectation of privacy, then you still do.There was no expectation of privacy when these hackers used FBI computers.
Citizens: the FBI wants you... (Score:1)
Re:Can Copy But Not View? (Score:1)
It's not THAT outlandish.
Let's say a cop sees a closed container. He has probable cause to believe the container contains evidence of a crime. Under the current case law he needs a warrant to actually open the container, unless there's some sort of exigent circumstance which would involve the evidence being destroyed or a significant danger to other people if the cop actually takes the six hours it would take to get the warrant.
It was some years ago, the first time I ever ran into this at work. I was booking a guy into the county jail on an FTA bench warrant. We were inventorying his personal effects and came across a small handbag, which looked damn similar to one taken in a mugging three days prior. So, what did we do?
We wrote out the affadavit, and got a warrant. THEN we opened the bag and found the mugging victim's driver's license and so forth. If we hadn't, the handbag and its contents would have been suppressed, which means they couldn't have been used as evidence and therefore we'd have almost no case on the robbery.
IOW, it's hardly unheard-of for cops to be unable to legally examine items already in their possession without a warrant. All this ruling is, is an application of the general principle to the specific case.
Expectation of privacy? (Score:1)
They should have used 31337 h4x0r m4g1c to spot the feds' sniffer and reverse engineered it to write "CRASH N BURN" on a skyscraper.
Whose Law Applies? (Score:2)
Why Russian?... (Score:1)
Re:Can Copy But Not View? (Score:1)
--
Re:Is it? (Score:2)
In states ruled by law, evidence that is obtained illegally is itself illegal. If we need judges to declare ways to obtain evidenc legal (when normal law would prohibit it) then you don`t have a state ruled by law, but a state ruled by judges. And I`d hate to see THEM being responsible for declaring WWIII
Anyway, seems to me the US has no business in setting things straight in Russia. Just like it had no business sending spyplanes over China, or tapping into European strategic, economic and diplomatic communication channels. Diplomacy, yes, action, no. If crooks are 'hiding on foreign soil' (and a crook is not a crook untill _prooven_ guilty, a fundamental human right) then they loose all form of jurisdiction and the US should tackle the problem in other ways. So that evidence smells. Besides no body had the chance to appeal the judge`s(state`s) decision in the first place. There is no constitutional ground for declaring this act legal, and the state is acting on it`s own, without foreign countries approving or being aware of this.
Crooks are to be dealth with, but I don`t believe you`ll ever get to exterminate the problem, and certainly not by engaging foreign secret operations without foreign authorities approving or even being aware of this.
Re:Can Copy But Not View? (Score:1)
Are they trying to say they got 250GB off the sniffer or off the guy's computer? And if it was off the guys computer did they get a search warrant for the password or just the data the password allowed them to access?
What kind of Internet connection did they have if they didn't notice the feds downloading hundreds of gig?
Anyone know of a better write-up than the ZD article?
Re:Can Copy But Not View? (Score:2)
Now if they said it was legit to break through a firewall or hack into a system.. that's where you have an expectation of privacy. That's kicking down someone's door.
Reasonable Search? (Score:1)
Here's an interesting viewpoint.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/10/budia
Umm... (Score:4)
I mean, I'm canadian on @Home and my email passes through primarily american co-located servers, so I'm sure my privacy will be respected to the utmost by the american investigators, right?
Re:Bending things a little bit? (Score:1)
Re:I Love It (Score:1)
Yeah. The first thing I tought of was...the gov't needs a warrent to search me, but not to clone me.
Should I be worried? (Score:2)
My suggestion is this: fix the ever-lovin' legal system from the ground up instead of continuing to try to keep patching the holes which LEAs and other agencies keep kicking in the walls of freedom.
I have personally been searched on 3 occasions because a drug dog barked at my van after I refused a search. I have never done drugs in my life. I have no criminal record. On one occasion I was brazenly full-body searched on a busy road near my home because I had a LEGALLY REGISTERED firearm in my vehicle. Is it right? Nope. Can I do a damned thing about it? Nope.
Little known facts: In the grand ol' US of A there is something called Family Court. Burden of proof: on the defendant. Appeals: NO SUCH THING. Double Jeopardy: NO SUCH THING. Right to a fiar trial: NO SUCH THING. Right to an attorney: NO SUCH THING. Conflict of interest: NO SUCH THING. Even more shocking: I was told by a judge on court record that I "would have a change of heart" because of my belief in corporal punishment or would be thrown in jail for contempt. Why is it like this? An LEA called DFCS, or DSS, or whatever your state calls it.
So go save the russians while your sister is being raped by your county cleark 'cause the neighbor thought she saw her smoke a joint.
Re:I Love It (Score:2)
there may not be time to get a warrant.
So, if the police don't have a warrant, but
suspect the data may be deleted before they
can get one, they can copy it (but not read it).
Then, once they have the warrant, they can read
their copy (or destroy it unread if the judge
refuses to give them a warrant).
Chris Mattern
Re:Hackers and Sting Operations (Score:1)
lets see (Score:1)
US and give them trial by russan/chineese law, because they
have forged log files. Those will look for any
excuse to do whatever they want granted they
are interested in final outcome. FBI has ventured
into international relationships here, CIA must be
feel snubbed. FBI has no place in counterintelligence,
just like CIA has no place in local matters.
Just because of expertise and ability to deal with
delicate issues of international relations.
Just see McVeigh's trial, where he was determined
guilty from the beginning by FBI, so only evidence
that supported his guilt has been handed over to
trial.
Besides cunning tactics like that are publicised,
and therefor available for immediate review by
other side. Now it will be hard to reel
'criminals' in similar way, because there will
be cross checks and double checks. Besides,
they are only reeling in script kiddies,
good ones work as security consultants remotely
anyway.
So we will applaud to FBI for its creativity,
however many will frown upon FBI for that,
because there's oodles of local script kiddies,
who need to be caught.
This will be interesting to see in which direction
it will go. Maybe computer related crimes
worldwide will be handled by FBI as compared to
CIA, because of international treaty thats
being cooked up by countries all over the world.
So if you telnet to machine somewhere in tadjikistan,
they will be able to haul your ass in jail if
their law says that you have commited a crime.
And so on...
Re:scary precedent-setting decision... (Score:1)
What to do about it? Can't say.
What's your point? (Score:1)
When these hackers put on their little performance for the FBI, they were in Seattle, which is well inside American territory. American laws did apply at that time, and it was then that they found themselves arrested and their data copied. Up until then, they were offered false jobs by a fictitious company in the hopes of catching them in criminal activity, but that's far from prosecution. The ethics of "sting"-type operations aside, you won't get caught in a sting if you're truly innocent. Further, I submit that you may be overlooking the apparently vast arrogance and stupidity of the hackers themselves. They deserved to get caught, and I don't think the hacker community is any worse off for their loss. I know that both Russian and American society are better off.
sillyputtyRe:juris my diction crap (Score:1)
This is Good & Bad. (Score:1)
Altho...I think the world should invade the U.S., to protect themselves. Seems things are slowly getting more and more out of hand. Maybe they don't do it because we're living thru a period of appeasement.
I'm just babbling now. EOF.
- Dev
Re:If not US or Russian law, when what laws apply? (Score:2)
As far as the US justice system is concerned, events that occur outside it are essentially a black box, and rightly so. Nations exist in a realm of anarchy, governed only by agreements that are binding only as long as they feel like abiding by them. It may be that the FBI should be prevented from playing internationally, but that makes these incidents what? A military matter? I think that's an even worse idea.
scary precedent-setting decision... (Score:5)
The judge noted that investigators then 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."
This opens a particularly nasty can of worms. Let's say I have a computer, and for whatever reason a law enforcement agency is told that my computer may have something they want. They could storm into my home and take my personal posessions, and there is nothing I could do about it, since they have not viewed the data yet. I would have no right to ask what they needed the equipment for, or why, or when I would get the hardware back.
I understand the argument (but do not condone it) of "if we don't get it now, it may be gone", but if "good reason" takes precedence over written law, law becomes powerless.
How bright could these guys be? (Score:3)
These two were bright enough to hack into CD Universe and Western Union but they weren't bright enough to consider that their keystrokes might be recorded? And apparently they weren't bright enough to use different passwords for their different accounts (or did the FBI have them demonstrate their hacking skills by hacking into their own accounts?)
Onorio Catenacci
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
Hackers and Sting Operations (Score:2)
On the one hand, I agree that since the FBI owned the computers in the first place, information entered into that computer wouldn't be the "possession" of the hackers, and should be freely used by the FBI.
On the other hand, they clearly used this information to gain access to something that didn't belong to them.
On the third hand, if a hacker manages to steal that much information, and can't be smart enough to avoid entering personal information on a computer they don't own, I don't have much respect for them.
And on the fourth hand, John Delorean.
The Judge Got This Right, And Wrong (Score:2)
However, the ruling on the validity of downloading the data looks specious to me, it is *directly* equivalent to using a access code to get messages off of an answering machine without a warrant. Even if you only tape the messages, you need a warrant *first*.
--Dave Rickey
If not US or Russian law, when what laws apply? (Score:3)
On the one hand: But then also: So then what? Perhaps Martian law applies? Certainly there is some set of laws that cover access to this property of a Russian national that existed on Russian soil... Well perhaps not... This is some scary stuff...Remind me never to get on the bad side of the FBI...
--CTH
Re:If not US or Russian law, when what laws apply? (Score:3)
So what happens when the russian cops file extredition papers with the US state depertment, to extradite the FBI agents who commmitted these crimes? Do you think they'd be honored? Sounds like an international incident waiting to happen.
Interesting implications.. (Score:3)
Anyone who's read Cryptonomicon will find this scenario familiar:
The FBI agent has the data copied to his hard drive. Now, he can't view it legally, but he still wants to know what it contains. What does "viewing" constitute?
The easiest approach might be grepping the data for interesting bits. But in this case he actually views parts of the data, so I guess that's out.
How about a more sophisticated program which analyzes the data and prints a summarized version of what the interesting bits contain? Given that the FBI agent probably has some idea what sort of data he's dealing with, such a program shouldn't be too hard to write.
Finally, straight from the book [well.com], the agent could write a script which greps and/or analyzes the data, converts the output to morse code, and beeps it out from the PC speaker. No viewing involved at all :)
Re:Interesting implications.. (Score:2)
57
gman@fbi:~/$
The agent never actually sees the contents of the file, but he can poke it with a stick to determine if what he's looking for is in there, kinda like the old Black-Box games. I wonder if something like this would considered a legal mehod for determining if a file contained justifiably suspect data.
Re:scary precedent-setting decision... (Score:2)
This opens a particularly nasty can of worms. Let's say I have a computer, and for whatever reason a law enforcement agency is told that my computer may have something they want. They could storm into my home and take my personal posessions, and there is nothing I could do about it, since they have not viewed the data yet. I would have no right to ask what they needed the equipment for, or why, or when I would get the hardware back.
But they can do that. Seizing evidence is a part of any criminal investigation, and they can hold it until the investigation is complete (although I think they have to get court permission for more than a certain length of time). Seizing electronic evidence is a tricky business [forensics-intl.com] anyway.
And as this page [lexis.com] states, "A warrant is usually required before a search or seizure takes place, unless there are 'exigent circumstances'"... in fact "there is no requirement in the Fourth Amendment that a warrantless search or seizure take place only upon probable cause", just reasonable suspicion. In this case, they had plenty of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and (critically) exigent circumstances.
cryptochrome
Re:Turnabout is fair play (Score:2)
No, I don't think this is considered entrapment. Entrapment generally involves them making you commit a crime, and then charging you with it. Pretending to go along with a crime they are committing (such as prostitution or solicitation of a prostitute, or drug deals) doesn't count, nor does leading them on for the purposes of obtaining information (such as this case).
cryptochrome
Turnabout is fair play (Score:3)
Besides, if you actually read the article you'll see that the FBI went to a lot of trouble to get those passwords - by setting up a fake business, luring them with job offers, flying them to America from Russian, and then sniffing their passwords while they demonstrated their cracking ability (presumably an illegal act in itself). Needless to say it's not something they would have the resources to do to just anyone.
cryptochrome
Re:International Law (Score:2)
The only issue of legality was that of the FBI grabbing the data before they had a warrant. The judge decided it's fine. End of story, our legal system is happy with it. Now if the Russians have issues with this arrest they can bring them up with our ambassadors. However they haven't. Personally I think the Russian government is fine with this, otherwise they would have already let us know.
This is a One-Sided Solution (Score:2)
Let's suppose FBI were successful to intercept the password or even the identity of the hacker(s). Then what? If according to the law where they live it's not a crime, then their government will reluctantly cooperate [theregister.co.uk] with FBI. If this is the case (which I strongly believe), what FBI will do? To intervene and kidnap them silently? Or lure them out to US? [theregister.co.uk] This is not only ethical but can also trigger wrath from other countries for intervening a country's internal issues.
This could be unfavorable for US as many countries view US as the "world cop" and this solution is clearly one-sided. Hence, many will speculate this as a prelude for a more daring effort to "secure" all digital piracy around the globe or at least make other countries tune into the same perspective.
I think the more reasonable way is to make a world consortium about this, sit down and make an agreement or convention or whatever to prevent further damages.
Oi... (Score:2)
Secondly, the judge was correct. The Russians could not be guarenteed privacy when using a computer that is not theirs. As far as the document, we do not know the title of the document itself. If it read, "my hacked shells.txt" then the FBI could legally copy it and obtain a warrant. It's very similar to seeing a shotgun in someone's car while the cop has him/her pulled over for a traffic stop and then legally being allowed to do a full search of the car.
Thirdly, the FBI did not violate any laws of Russia. And no that doesn't give you the right to illegally access machines of people that supposedly illegally accessed you. No, the FBI is not above the law however in order to protect us, law enforcement agencies do need to be able to bend the law a little bit to get the evidence they need. Sorta like the FBI going into a business and requesting their Tax files from the last 10 years in investigating a tax fraud case.
Finally, if you have nothing to hide then don't worry about law enforcement. If you do have something to hide then put your tail between your legs. Every person on here who complains about the FBI and the gov't is just afraid that their warez'd version of Photoshop will be found.
I think you need to flash your brain's firmware.
Re:Is it? (Score:2)
--
Is it? (Score:5)
Wouldn't it make us all better off if those guys had just sold programming services instead? They had plenty of expertise in several areas, but they decided to engage in crime. I have no sympathy.
--
Re:So when will we see... (Score:2)
However, the computer was compromised on Russian soil and THAT is a real issue. Obviously it is some form of search and seisure, as one needs a warrant to utilize the data. While there is no physical invasion of foreign soil any more than there would be if one accessed gov.uk, using stolen passwords is a violation of most legal systems. The complete lack of any sort of information transfer between the US and Russia is horrible, and a clear violation of both Russian law and the sanctity of their borders. Whether or not the Russians were inept at dealing with crime in their borders, they must be gone through or else militant fundamentalists will have the right to violate US borders because of US ineptitude in dealing with "the abortion problem" or "the satanist problem" or the just general corporate worldwide domination and exploitation problem.
Then again, this action seems to fall directly in line with Bush's policy goal of getting into another really big war.
-Cgenman finds it cute that they were only caught when the tried to get real jobs.
Re:Can Copy But Not View? (Score:4)
Excellent! So it's okay to copy mp3's as long as we don't view them.
RC
Welcome to the Wild Wild West (Score:2)
We think that being in the US is bad because the FBI has jurisdiction here and so has some rights to pry. But, really, being outside the US is worse because the FBI (and NSA -- Echelon) is essentially being given free rein to do whatever they want. To whom is the FBI accountable when they hack other nations' computers? Apparently no one.
-----------------------
International Law (Score:5)
Whether Russia is considered a lawless place as compared to the US by US citizens or not is of very little concern for international law. If it's on their soil, it's their responsibility. If they don't live up to what you think their responsibility is, the only thing you're allowed to do is to complain. No nuking, no computer intrusions, no covert police actions.
The notion of whether somewhere is a lawless place is a highly subjective notion, don't you think? Compared to Somalia, Russia is a pretty lawful place. The sheer number of laws in effect in Russia is probably comparable to the US. What you describe as it being a lawless place is more precisely a certain chaos in how they are enacted and executed. However, the FBI will have to be asked for aid by the Russians prior to intruding in order for the whole thing to be compliant to international law.
Also, there is the issue of "intrusion". The fact that the FBI obtained the passwords in a fashion that was legal against US law dows not lessen the intrusion. If it was legal in Iran to torture people, could the Iranians torture some Americans, get their passwords to some American servers and happily go downloading away just because they don't have to hack into the machine, after all, because they've got the passwords? The danger of hypocrisy is rather evident.
Bending things a little bit? (Score:5)
Define "bend the law a little bit".
According to law, a law enforcement agency must operate within the law. Everything else is unlawful by definition. If we allow law enforcement agencies to behave unlawfully, then we can go back to torturing prisoners and concentration camps: in the substance, there's no difference. And the FBI is allowed by law to request tax files.
Admittedly, your point is better than your last one. But imagine borrowing a friend's car, then getting crashed into by a drunk truck driver. Should you not be guaranteed personal safety in spite of the car you're driving not being yours? Shouldn't I be guaranteed privacy when walking on a public road that isn't mine? Is the government allowed to confiscate my friend's laptop and see through his files when I walk into a public building that isn't mine? What would the FBI have done if the Russians had used their own computers? Shrugged and said "Well, we can't act here?"
This time, you are really dangerously mistaken. Even if I have nothing to hide, the law enforcement ageny might think I had something to hide and do all sorts of nasty things to me, for example. And just because someone acts in a fashion that you (or the law enforcement agency) consider strange doesn't mean they've got something to hide, and this completely subjective notion should definitely not suffice for them to start hacking into my computer, even if I haven't got a warezed version of Photoshop. What if they hack into it, find my legal copies of Jack B. Nymble and PGP and decide that I'm a potential criminal, hence I'm probably a criminal, hence I am a criminal, hence they can take action against me because they've bent the law a little bit?
In a free, civil society, every individual must be allowed to worry about privacy, about individual security and about law enforcement agencies. Just because I question the police's behaviour doesn't mean I'm a criminal.