Russian Agency Charges FBI Agent With Hacking 386
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."
I guess... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I guess... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I guess... (Score:2, Interesting)
As per tournabout business and entrapment, non-US citizens here on vacation DO NOT enjoy the same rights as Americans do. Nothing in the constitution says we have to extend those rights to everyone in the world.It specifically specifies US citizens.
Re:I guess... (Score:2, Insightful)
The fifth amendment mentions "person" not "citizen" and includes the phrase "due process of law".
Back to the story in question - this sounds like the Feds overstepped the mark in gathering evidence. We have rules of evidence for a reason, and if they arn't followed, saying the accused is a foreigner so it doesn't matter hardly sounds like, shall we say, the American Way - it would be condemned if it happened to a US citizen abroad.
Re:I guess... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I guess... (Score:3, Informative)
Appropriate Punishment? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Appropriate Punishment? (Score:2, 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.
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.
Re:Good news (Score:3, Insightful)
In a different country than your agency, never.
When is wiretapping someone legal vs. illegal?
In a different country than your agency, never.
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?
Unless you can show self-defense, never.
Are glass bullets ever legal?
No. Neither are plastic bullets. The reason they're outlawed in the vast majority of all countries (and by the Geneva convention) is that they make it extraordinarily difficult to treat a wound.
When is it "taking a prisoner" and when is it "kidnapping"?
When you are in your country's jurisdiction, and you have a legal right to take the person prisoner - otherwise it is kidnapping.
When is it a "military operation" and when is it "terrorism"?
When it's in the interest of the US it's the former, and if it isn't, it's the latter - according to the US anyway. Others' may sensibly disagree. The plan to send people to other countries to 'neutralize' suspected terrorists would certainly qualify as state-sponsored terrorism. Imagine for a moment that Iraq did the same to kill americans that have partaken in bombings in Baghdad - what would the reaction be (and no, I'm not equalizing last years attack in New York with the Iraqi conflict)?
/Janne
Re:Good news (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, the point I was making is that the same action can have different legal and moral labels according to situation and perspective. In short, it is not always "a crime is a crime is a crime".
I wasn't really expecting to play the game out... well, OK... the "terrorism" bit is too charged these days to not exect comment. So going further on this is probably OT. But it still is interesting. So here goes.
Well... if you get caught spying on a country, you're breaking their laws certainly. But just being a spy isn't always illegal. We're not running around arresting all the former agents of the CIA, KGB,MI5, Mossad, etc.
We're back to spying. But this is also a domestic issue. The difference in that case is usually a court order.
Actually, I would say you're missing a major point here - act of war. Granted, there are limits even then. The shotgun comes in to play there.
I believe you'll find the Geneva convention covers lots of nasty devices. I mentioned glass bullets because they are particularly nasty. But so are chemical weapons. Shotguns are also prohibited. But you'll note that shotguns and chemical weapons show up prominently in many nations military training.
There are catches to the Geneva convention. First, it only applies when there is an official delaration of war (I believe the last formal delcaration by the US was WWII). And secondly, if one side ignores the Geneva convetion, everybody is free to ignore it. Gets nasty quickly - and its all "legal".
OK. I should probably be ashamed to have included this because its such a touchy subject at this time. However... I couldn't resist.
Terrorism is a very valid tactic used in warfare. It is otherwise known as psycological warfare. Where it falls in to the "illegal" definition, and the one most commonly associated by the public, is when targets are civilians or the act is done by civilians.
And this is where things get especially dicey. A civilian target can also be a valid military target (ie: factories, communcations centers, a civilian structure housing anti-aircraft artillary, etc). And how do you ensure those commiting these acts are, in fact, combatants? Usually the difference between a combatant/soldier and a spy/criminal/non-combatant is a military uniform. Most acts of terrorism in the news over the past few decades have been either against civilian targets or commited by individuals in civilian garb.
Of course... this is just touching on the subject. This particular definition is hard enough to nail down with all the mitigating factors that existed before the current political climate. Further obfuscation of the issue by seizing it for political purposes is short-sighted to say the least. But I'll stop before this becomes a bit long rant.
Anyway - the point is... its not all black and white.
Re:Good news (Score:3, Insightful)
Espionage is always illegal according to the victim, and often the host country (which may be different). However,
a) Agents may have diplomatic immunity, so at most they get declared persona non grata for "activities incompatible with their status", and expelled, usually leading to a tit-for-tat expulsion.
b) Non-immune agents, or "illegals", do run the risk of arrest -- if there is sufficient evidence to arrest them, that is; if such evidence is admissible in court; and there are no other factors that count against arrest (for instance, if an arrest would reveal a source, or a weakness in somebody's codes...).
Ex-agents have been arrested occasionally. Robert Hanson (sp?), for instance, had not worked for the Russians for some years before the FBI agents "reactivated" him in a sting.
As for military operations and terrorism, it's more complicated than "does the US like it or not". I don't recall any whining by any US official that, for instance, soldiers killed by Taliban/al-Qaeda in combat were killed by terrorism -- by terrorists perhaps, but that act of killing on the battlefield was itself not terrorism. Also, much that isn't clearly harmful to the US still gets labeled as terrorism -- from a completely amoral point of view, for instance, it might be preferable to stand aside and let the Islamists wipe out the Israelis if they'll leave us alone other than selling cheap oil, but the US doesn't mince words regarding them... If all the US cared about was money, as some critics charge, that would be exactly what we'd do -- just like certain nations openly care more about cheap Iraqi oil than getting rid of a threat to the whole Middle East. It's a moral issue.
Oh, and the Geneva conventions do allow operations even if they are guaranteed to cause incidental loss of civilian life, so long as it is not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated" and the primary target is otherwise legal...
Re:Good news (Score:2)
Perhapse. But then... the US also had a hand in creating the Isreali state. And Isreal has given the US one of its ownly footholds in the region. Although... recently, we've gained others.
We are kind of hanging out in Saudi Arabia like Uncle Eddie - the uncle that drops by, crashes on the couch, and then just doesn't go home. And, of course, Kuwait is thrilled to death with our presence in their country.
It might be worth noting that we've been a bit tougher with Isreal recently than we have in the past (is it because we don't need them as badly anymore?). And while I won't completely abandon the idea of "terrorism" being a moral issue... I can't buy that supporting Isreal has been entirely without any bennifit to the US.
Re:Good news (Score:3, Informative)
a) An Israeli government that still goes against US policy. If memory serves, the US has criticized --
- The building of more settlements in the occupied regions.
- Blatantly obvious life-threatening human-rights violations like the use of Palestinian civvies as human shields.
- The building of a wall along the Green Line.
- Punishing the relatives of militants through destruction of their home and moving them from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip.
- Until recently, any marginalization of Yasser Arafat, who was thought to be vital to the peace process.
I'm not sure if the US has criticized the Israeli policy of extrajudicial executions, e.g. targetting militants with helicopter gunships, or whether it's commented on the various blockades.
b) The open, violent hatred of just about everyone else in the region; plus vast amounts of criticism from Europe and just about everyone else, for being publically so pro-Israeli. This has hurt diplomatically, economically (e.g. the oil embargo), and otherwise (inviting such acts as the WTC bombing, the 9/11 attack, the Marine Barracks attacks, the Embassy bombings)... not surprising when anti-Jewish propaganda declares that the US is, after all, a puppet state run by a Zionist conspiracy.
If the US were fervently isolationist, at least with regards to the Middle East, it would probably get less grief. And if the US were isolationist and made fewer (if any?) enemies there, I doubt that the US would even
So, while there may be a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that the US is supporting a nominally friendly democratic republic, possibly averting a second Holocaust, and opposes factions whose tactics we find repulsive, I'm not sure that there's much practical gain. One might say that there's practical gain for the politicians, because Americans are generally pro-Israel, but then one has to explain why the voters would be more favorable towards Israeli... and it might be even harder to point towards any practical gain for individual voters.
Re:Good news (Score:2)
True - but then, I think these criticisms have been over the last decade or so. Fairly recent in terms of the modern unrest in the Middle East.
Good point - I had forgotten about Turkey. And you make an excellent point about how much grief the US gets over support of Isreal (especially the current hard-line government).
Still, that area of the world holds an increadable amount of sway over the world economy. There's a lot of power there. The US could not afford to be isolationist and not have some ability to influence the area... or bring military power to bear.
Re:Good news (Score:3, Interesting)
First - let me point out that I find the current political environment around the term "terrorism" extremely distateful. And furthermore, I am not here to defend US action or claim that the US is always on moral highground. Having said that...
You've made an interesting point about Al Quaeda. Do they have a set military uniform? Do they commit these acts while wearing this uniform? And even then - is a country affiliation also required by international law? I would have to agree that, all other issues accounted for (and that covers a LOT of additional ground), Al Quaeda has targeted some valid military targets.
As for US killing... that would have to go on a case-by-case basis. The Iranian airline would have to be, at best, a tragic mistake.
I'm not sure about your reference to the Chinese.
I would assume the Iraqi and Afghan references are from the "Gulf War" and the recent conflict in Afghanistan. Afghan deaths have been attributed to military targets by the US military - denial of this is either propoganda or evidence of US military screwups. I suspect the same can be said for deaths of civilians during hostilities with Iraq (coupled with some very questionable propoganda out of Iraq - the 'baby milk factory' video being a prime example).
Re:Good news (Score:2, Informative)
From my perspective, this is no different from the acts justifiably condemned as state-supported terrorism by other countries.
You cannot stop atrocities by committing more of them yourself. All that will happen is that you'll lose the moral high ground and make people question whether your motives and actions are any purer than those of the (other) terrorists.
Re:Good news (Score:2)
Interesting points. I would assume that you have read / seen reports of this happening or you wouldn't have brought it up (or is this yet more PATRIOT Act in action?). Do you have any links?
Also... this sounds like something along the lines of espionage. Are the more violent aspects of espionage at the same level as state-supported terrorism?
Re:Good news (Score:2)
I read an artical a few years ago, seems an American was arrested for kidnapping an inidivudal and trying to take them from Canada, into the United States.
Under Canadian law the suspect could not be extradited for the crime. (Can't remember the details on that, it was not a capital crime).
By the way, according to the article the suspect was still in Toronto and the American law enforcement agent was spending a year in jail.
If a crime is commited within the boarders of a foreign country THEIR laws apply.
Even if you actions are conducted remotely.
Re:Good news (Score:2)
Of course the U.S. court determined it was legal. It was in their interest after all.
Doesn't actually make it legal, they committed a crime in a foreign country.
Re:Good news (Score:2)
It might be worthwhile to point out that, according to what you've said, this seems to be theoretical at this point. Accusing the US of state-sponsored terrorism on this account seems a bit premature.
The reason I bring up espionage is that it sounds very cloak-and-dagger. I would suspect if you go back through the Coldwar era, you'll find assassinations performed by military personel as a part of counter-intelligence operations.
And while I can't say that I would expect the international community to condone assassination, I find it hard to equate an assassin's bullet with, say, the bombing of a crowded shopping area. But then, a key part of this discussion is morality... and that's not easy when dealing with this sort of nasty business.
Re:Good news (Score:2)
Whatever the japanese did to soldiers in POW camps was terrible, to say the least. But that cannot justify the slaughter of more than 210,000 people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki(that's 70 times the number of WTC victimes, and that doesn't even include those who died from radiation sickness). That was one of the most cowardly acts of war ever perpetrated by any modern nation (it would be a true terrorist action if it hadn't been done by the military), and should be denounced as such.
Re:Good news (Score:2)
I remember during some of my first lectures on the Rules of Warfare and the Geneva Convention that shotguns were mentioned. I found it odd that they were "prohibited". But my memory may be a bit fuzzy on that so I poked around a bit.
According to this source [198.65.138.161]:
Shotguns are also mentioned here [lawofwar.org] and it implies some level of restriction... but I wasn't really able to figure out exactly what.
Re:Good news (Score:2)
One small point... I believe this funding comes from US civilians, not the government. But then, I believe the US policy towards Saudi Arabia recently has more to do with suspected private funding to terrorist organizations than Saudi government support (I could be wrong).
Re:Good news (Score:2)
Oh, and the "Real IRA" is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, so any US citizen helping them in any material fashion, just about, risks arrest and jail time. The IRA isn't designated itself anymore, probably because they're participating in the peace process, and probably the other remaining belligerents (the Ulster Volunteer Force (?), the Provisional IRA, other groups) get less funding from the US people.
Re:Good news (Score:2)
If your 'prisoner'
a) Does not have a criminal-suspect status, and legal protection as such.
OR:
b) Does not have a POW (Prisoner of war) status, and legal protection as such.
Then: Your prisoner is a 'hostage'.
It's as simple as that.
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".
Re:The Scope of International Law (Score:2)
Certainly. I didn't ask them with no previous knowledge of what the answers might be. Many of these points were covered by my formal military education. This doesn't make me an expert in international law - but I am familiar with a few of its points (and at least understand what the US Military policy was during the late 80s to mid 90s).
Actually - I'm willing to argue that point. I suspect that in these times international law simply does not apply. For example, how does international law handle spying? Certainly, the US has laws against spying. I'm sure all other countries do too. But are we rounding up all the former Coldwar agents of the KGB, CIA, MI5, etc for a massive international tribunal? No.
Also note that some of the questions I put forth have both international and domestic components. Granted - its natural to focus on the international aspect since the parent story is an international issue.
I completely agree. The current administration is fast trading in whatever moral highground the US might have had for the sake of expedience. It makes it far more difficult to justify US involvement in international affairs. And it endangers our own people as those who ask to step in "harms way" are less likely to be treated according to international law if they are captured (this is already tenuious situation as it is). And, as you pointed out, these actions potentially undo generations of history and sacrifice.
Re:The Scope of International Law (Score:2)
And it's not even clear that they're achieving that. As they beat the drums for war with Irag, they're finding how much chucking Kyoto and the ICC is costing... People simply don't trust the United States to be the honest broker anymore.
Re:The Scope of International Law (Score:2)
I guess that depends whose numbers you believe. All those missing millions and billions just keep on adding up...
Just a comment on something... (Score:2)
Re:Just a comment on something... (Score:2)
Wrong analogy. Consider it more like a search warrant to go through a package of documents adressed to the suspect. In this case the package is in the US (the FBI computer). The problem is how the package arrived in the US? The FBI claim that the suspects' computer sent it, and the suspects clain the FBI broke Russian law by breaking into the computer and stealing the package.
So yes, you could send strike teams with search warrants to Iraq to steal evidence, but they're subject to Iraqi law as long as they're there. Are you sure that's worth the risk just to retrieve evidence?
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:2, Flamebait)
Yeah I bet RMS could get them jobs at the FSF... no $pay$ albeit free doughnuts.
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.
Re:Which is a crock of course... (Score:2)
In terms of actual law, I know that there's been at least a few cases where illegal immigrants (non-citizens) were found to be protected, but, as in this case, there are also cases where it's not considered to apply overseas.
Re:Which is a crock of course... (Score:2)
It may have been a good thing anyway. But any argument that says people doesn't mean people is just silly. Those amendments were added specifically because the people didn't trust the government without them. (And events have frequently shown that even with them the government can't be trusted
Re:Just what are you calling a crock? (Score:2)
You know there is a mechanism to extend and change the consitution.
Re:Of course, this isn't entrapment in the slighte (Score:2)
Perhaps the people in Russia don't have the same image of the US govt the US citizens do. I am sure the russians have a healthy distrust of the russian govt but their image of the US may be skewed by watching too many episodes of I love genie or dallas. It's kind of ironic that the average american geek distrusts the US govt more then the average russian geek.
Re:Of course, this isn't entrapment in the slighte (Score:2, Interesting)
Easier said than done. You're also assuming keyloggers are software. Not many people pop their keyboards open before use to check for the presence of a surreptitiously-installed microcontroller and a serial EEPROM. [I can put a device no bigger than a nickel into a keyboard that watches for "su" and records the next 20 chars (or up to the next cr) and can do that hundreds of times with memory to spare for less than $20 - and I'm a rank amateur. You can bet the FBI's versions of hardware keyloggers are a lot spiffier - and probably smaller - than that.]
If they think you could be one o' them terrorist hackers, they won't even need a warrant to stick one in your machine when you're not looking.
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.)
Re:This is what it all comes to (Score:2, Interesting)
US exemption from the ICC (Score:2)
As opposed to, say, holding numerous foreign citizens from diverse states hostage in a military installation, denying them any legal rights or access to representation, and refusing to acknowledge them as either prisoners of war or criminal suspects who should be legally tried?
Y'know, I only mention it because, well, that lot sounds entirely like the sort of behaviour that would get those responsible up before the ICC in short order, to be tried on whether or not their actions were reasonable. And it's not as though the entire rest of the world, from Arab states to the US' closest allies, is criticising the policy or anything.
What you want is one law for you, and one law for everyone else. That is hypocritical, pure and simple. Every argument that could be made to defend that position would apply equally to all the other states involved, yet they are agreed, at least on the major points, that the ICC is a good thing and they are prepared to stand before it if necessary. The US wants exemption so it can continue to perform with impunity acts that would otherwise be regarded as illegal by the international community (kidnapping, assassination, military acts without due declaration of war, etc). Hell, the US now votes with certain "terrorist-harbouring" nations in opposing anti-terrorism legislation supported universally by the rest of the western world.
You want one law for yourselves and one for everyone else, and you want your own courts to oversee it all. The rest of the world things that's unreasonable, for some reason. It really is that simple.
Re:This is what it all comes to (Score:3, Informative)
You don't read this site very much, do you? It is riddled with comments about hoping that American's 'get what they deserve', whatever that may be. And supposedly this site is supposed to cater to the more enlightened masses.
As a general rule the US does not allow its armed forces to be commanded by non American's. The reasoning behind this is that it's been shown that American troops are more effective this way. Part of this is also that it's troops are responsible to US military courts as well. Having US soldiers brought before a different court system would be a blow to one of the fundamentals of the US military and hurt combat effectiveness.
Besides this, we in the US believe in a 'jury by your peers'. A world courty is hardly that.
Re:This is what it all comes to (Score:2)
I don't really see how there's any room for argument here. We want an international court, but we want to be totally immune to any laws it may have. No matter what, that's hypocritical. Either we are in favor of national sovereignity, and don't support ANY national court, or we have to allow ourselves to be subject to it. It's blatanty clear to anyone who thinks about it for even half a second what's going on here.
Re:This is what it all comes to (Score:2)
A few comments in a narrow public forum does not a world conspiracy make.
Having US soldiers brought before a different court system would be a blow to one of the fundamentals of the US military and hurt combat effectiveness.
Having to obey international treaties also hurts combat effectiveness. Should we do away with them too?
Besides this, we in the US believe in a 'jury by your peers'. A world courty is hardly that.
If the issue at hand is an international issue, your peers are the citizens of the world, not the citizens of the US.
Re:This is what it all comes to (Score:2)
The countries that would be harrassed by the Court would probably be the US (for peacekeeping ops), the UK (ditto), and Russia (for Chechnya). The former two
Russian Law (Score:2, Insightful)
It's better this way, really. Would you want Russian courts enforcing the US DMCA against Skylarov?
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.
NWO (Score:2)
As unpopular as this idea might be with some people, there are some areas that would benefit from a goverment with worldwide, legitimate jurisdiction.
Re:NWO (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh, what a tangled web... (Score:2)
I think that you mean that the court decisions were in accordance with the laws. I doubt that the US court decision allowing the FBI agents off the hook was, in fact, in accordance with the laws. It does, however, have a lot of precedents, most of them pretty repulsive.
OTOH, if you were talking about morally right,
1) Legal and morally right are not the same. They are frequently in direct opposition.
2) What a law is, is a declaration that "If you don't do things the way we say, we will use force against you." This is as moral as the school yard tough. Or perhaps less so. The potential for morality lays in the way that the decision to create the law is made, and the way in which the edicts are applied. You can justify both respect for individual values, and "contemporary community standards" (though that last requires a bit of weasel work), but most laws don't pass either test. So most laws are, at best, amoral. N.B.: Just because a justification is possible, doesn't mean that a valid argument can be made which justifies something. People don't usually check on the validity of their justifications. These decisions, however, appear to be rooted in governmental convenience, which makes them immoral rather than just amoral.
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...
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?
Re:Whose law should apply? (Score:3, Informative)
This is actualy coverd in international law.
Say i stand in one contry and shoot a bullet over the border to another country to kill someone.
his is a crime in both countrys but i can only be procequted (spelling?) in one.
Contry 2 has the ball if they want to go first.
however if i stand in c1 and over the phone to c2 sa that god wears leather underwear and frequents the blue oyster bar
turn the reasoning around in the last example and no crime has been comitted.
analogy would give:
I was ok in the us but not in russia. If the FBI agnt goes to russia they can (and should be)arrsted
It becomes harder when you look at a webpage because you dont aim a webpage.
you just make it accessable for all.
This is the problem legislators have to deal with. and sofar they shoose to interpet it as solissiting in every country there is.
Re:Whose law should apply? (Score:2)
Re:Whose law should apply? (Score:2)
Wrong - not "no recourse", it just wouldn't be a criminal matter, it would be an act of war (if the foreign country in question permitted it). Pearl Harbour wasn't illegal, but the US had a great deal of recourse there...
Re:Whose law should apply? (Score:2)
Certainly not a knock on you but do you realize how ridiculous that concept is?
I don't see what the problem is here (Score:2, Funny)
Good point... (Score:2)
I wish there was some sort of effort out there to actually "pirate" things which are in the public domain.
PBS could start sending out Divx files; considering we already paid for the programming, let us host it.
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?
Re:Search warrant? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're a cop. You have a sting operation comming up and could bring down a major drug dealer.
First day, you simply kick in the door and confiscate the drugs... why not, they might flush them!
It's somewhat silly. When we played "Cops & Robbers" as kids we had rules. The Cops usually won - but they were still somewhat impared. Why? Because that is what seperates the cops from the robbers! Cops are supposed to obey the law, and when they step outside that they aren't cops anymore.
And don't give me that terrorism shit either
Sure: Carnivore (Score:3, Interesting)
Schroeder's cat: If I have a copy of data I can't access, at what point is the data actually "seized"? When it is a copy of bits, or when it is examined and found to be data?
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.
Re:one used to be able to say... (Score:2)
The US reserves the right to refuse privacy protections, due process, and the rule of law for all citizens of the world.
--BTW: This case's first problem is no due process, the FBI skipped the warrant--
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]
Re:Which laws DO apply? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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
That's what I got on that link. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong number of arguments or invalid property assignment: 'instr'
No article.. ;(
Re:What Speed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What Speed? (Score:2)
FAPSI are the former communications and cryptography directorates of the KGB. They have a similar scale of imagination. However to use cryptography, you need a) a licence and b) to use FAPSI approved and provided software which essentially a symetrical only system. The software itself was quite cheap, but you had to send all your staff to a FAPSI licensed organisation to receive training (yes, KGB old-boys).
As the organisation that I was working with was related to the central bank, they could use other software (PGP) for authenticating information.
In general, I would say that both FAPSI and the FSB are over-legalistic, unimaginative and avaricious. They will create false dangers to promote their agendas and ignore real ones.
Not at all like the FBI and the NSA......
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:Wouldn't they need to arrest him in russia? (Score:2)
But by publicising this they can give USA a hand slap and still get out ahead even if they actually has no chance of being able to apprehend the criminals.
This is part of a larger problem - criminals using computoers to comit crimes in another country - who shall determine the jurisdiction ?
And who shall determine what is the right way to try and catch those criminals ? Cliff Stolls book showned how hard it is to catch an international spy.
There is a need for an international treaty about jurisdiction and acceptable actionas by law enforcements.
Re:FBI does what it does (Score:3, Insightful)
The FBI is using the courts' confusion over the internet to muddy the waters about where the crime took place and who should have jurisdiction. This twists the situation around so that Dmitriy is a US criminal for doing something in his own country that's entirely legal in his own country, and the FBI can do anything illegal in the US and not have to answer to US law.
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?
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?
Re:Next time gadget... (Score:2)
In the U.S in general you have very little privacy in the workplace (which would seem to be the closest fit here). They are basically free to monitor your every keystroke really.
Taken from this overview [privacyrights.org]...
Is my employer allowed to see what is on my terminal while I am working?
Generally, yes. Since the employer owns the computer network and the terminals, he or she is free to use them to monitor employees.
Employees are given some protection from computer and other forms of electronic monitoring under certain circumstances. Union contracts, for example, may limit the employer's right to monitor. Also, public sector employees may have some minimal rights under the United States Constitution, in particular the Fourth Amendment which safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure
I doubt the union part applies, ermm UFRH (united federation of russian hackers) is notorious for their poor contracts
Would be interesting to see how it would play out for the FBI agents in a foreign court, but ya can bet there is no chance they will ever see one. FBI would never allow em out of the country unless they knew the whole mess that was possible from it was over with, because of the publicity that would come of it
Wonder foreign policy powers activate! (Score:2)
And on lighter news did anyone else see this [cnn.com]? 116 trillion dollars? Appearently, Scott Evil will be taking the LSAT! I mean, I feel for those people, and maybe agree with some of their reasoning in assigning blame, but combining comic book supervillain plots with actual lawsuits seems less than productive.
Re:Next time gadget... (Score:2)
Re:Next time gadget... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Next time gadget... (Score:2)
Of course they can monitor everything (Score:2)
Didn't you read the EULA taped to the monitor before you logged in?
Re:Next time gadget... (Score:2)
The point here isn't that the FBI logged the passwords it is that they used them to hack their computers and steal evidence. This is the same blackmail these guys were using against companies. The FBI became a criminal to catch one which I think is very wrong.
Re:Next time gadget... (Score:2)
Re:Scary Tacticts (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scary Tacticts (Score:2)