Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security

Russian Snared By The FBI Sentenced To 3 Years 510

Posted by timothy from the hubris-on-both-sides dept.
Mark Cantrell writes "Vasiliy Gorshkov, one of two Russian crackers who were arrested in November 2000 after the FBI broke into their computer systems were sentenced Friday. Taking pity on Gorshkov's family, they sentenced Gorshkov to 3 years in prison and a fine of nearly $700,000 USD. They also mention how a U.S. judge found that the FBI wasn't breaking any laws in breaking into a Russian computer system, despite the fact that they were breaking a Russian law doing so. So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian Snared By The FBI Sentenced To 3 Years More

Russian Snared By The FBI Sentenced To 3 Years

Comments Filter:

  • Write your Congressman (Score:5, Insightful)

    by igotmybfg ( 525391 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:26AM (#4393435) Homepage
    It seems like these kind of things happen all the time and all we ever do is talk about how bad it is. We talk about abstract concepts like freedom and liberty, but what do we do to put those things into action? This is it, folks. Today is the first day of the rest of your life. Stand up and say something. I'll see you later, I have a letter to write.

    • Re:Write your Congressman (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:38AM (#4393477) Journal
      Standing up for the rights of Russian crackers to break into US banks and ecommerce sites to steal credit cards doesn't strike me as something that your congressperson will be very likely to do.

      This case has only a slight relation to computers at all... It's more of a foreign policy matter. It's nothing like the Syklarov case. These were real criminals committing real crimes, stealing real money through fraud and computer intrusion.

      • Re:Write your Congressman (Score:5, Insightful)

        by darthdrinker ( 150713 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:47AM (#4393514)
        However, the USA commited a crime themselves in trying to get these criminals. A country MUST follow the rules they want others to obbey if they want to be taken serieus. This is an absolute disaster for international law. Wherever I am and from whatever country I come, I have to obbey american law or i can go to jail. If america has this kind of influence in the world then the rest of the world must have the same kind of influence in america or else it is not a democratic state....

        • Re:Write your Congressman (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mpe ( 36238 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @12:55PM (#4393807)
          However, the USA commited a crime themselves in trying to get these criminals. A country MUST follow the rules they want others to obbey if they want to be taken serieus. This is an absolute disaster for international law.

          The US having double standards when it applies to laws is hardly news. This is the country which wants to bomb another one into the ground on the basis that it ignores UN resolution, has weapons of mass destruction, has invaded some of its neighbours, treats ethnic groups in their territories badly and is lead by a nasty man. At the same time giving lots of money to another country in the same region which ignores more UN resolutions, has more weapons of mass destruction, has invaded all of its neighbours, treats ethnic groups in their territories badly and is lead by a nasty man.
          The vast majority of the rest of the world has already come to the conclusion not to take the US seriously, this is just icing on the cake.
        • So then the real question to be decided is, if you are in one country, and you commit a crime in another country, under who's laws are you subject?
        • "International law" is a joke -- it's all about power. So is the idea that any government should kowtow to the laws of another. Should the British press start printing articles lauding the achievements and perfection of Mr. Mugabe? Should the Americans extradite the Chinese dissidents so they can be imprisoned? Should the Russians blithely turn over all their agents to the FBI for arrest and interrogation?

          No. And if you're within another nation's power, don't believe for a second that "international law" matters more than pragmatism and whether or not the nation can /afford/ to exert power over you.
        • The reality is that these guys were criminals and stupid. If the US had
          actually invaded Russia to get them I would see a need to loose sleep over
          it. But the idiots came to this country and allowed the FBI to acquire their
          passwords. I wouldn't be surprised to see them nominated for the IgNoble
          awards next year.

          The Dmitry case is different. There are legitimate legal
          reasons to the technology his company developed. And as far as I know he
          wasn't using that technology to empty peoples bank accounts. Yes the FBI
          was underhanded but sometimes cops do things that aren't completely by the
          book to put scum bags in jail. That's life. Sometimes the borders between
          good and bad are fuzzy.

          At the end of the day these two jerks will
          be sitting in a jail cell instead of ripping of customers and I can't say
          I'm gonna shed a tear. Mod me down for this I don't care.

  • Nothing new (Score:3, Insightful)

    by arty3 ( 64523 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:26AM (#4393436)
    So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia

    This applies to just about anything these days. Just replace Russian with "the rest of the world"

    • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)

      by Zekk ( 411637 ) <slashdot.12.zekk@NOsPam.spamgourmet.com> on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:40AM (#4393482) Homepage
      Fortunately, Bush has foreseen the resistance to his irresponsible foreign policies and come up with a solution! [theonion.com]
      American government - looking out for your interests, at home and abroad ;-).

      • Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        Fortunately, Bush has foreseen the resistance to his irresponsible foreign policies and come up with a solution! [theonion.com] American government - looking out for your interests, at home and abroad ;-)

        A pity Slashdot moderation dosn't distinguish between "humour" and "satire" in the "funny" catagory.

    • Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Informative)

      by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )

      So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia

      This applies to just about anything these days. Just replace Russian with "the rest of the world"

      It's even worse. Not only the USA imposes its laws on the rest of the world, other countries do so as well. Remember Yahoo being sued by the French government because somebody (who wasn't in France) used Yahoo's online auction site for vending products that were illegal in France? Another example is a German company forcing a Dutch (that is, based in the Netherlands, not Germany) hosting provider to take down a sombody's website because it violated a German (but not a Dutch) law. Etc. etc.

      Unfortunately, I don't have any links to support my statements at the moment, but even if they are not completely correct, similar things happened. If national governments continue imposing their laws on the Internet, we will end up having more bytes worth of disclaimers in every page than actual data, the censorship of every government in the world combined, people getting sued because their page is in an outlawed language, etc. etc. The best thing is that the Internet is not a nation of itself, and thus cannot defend itself. If anybody sees the way out, please tell me, because I see this as a real problem without a real solution.

      ---
      You are the government
      You are jurisprudence
      You are the volition
      You are jurisdiction
      And I make a difference too
      -- Bad Religion - You Are (the Government)

  • Dimitry DID break US law (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:27AM (#4393437)
    questions of constitutionality aside, Dimitry did indeed violate the DMCA. He made his presentation in the United States. Had he not presented, he probably wouldnt have been arrested.

  • No wonder everyone hates the USA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gaff1 ( 67478 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:27AM (#4393439)
    Is it any wonder why the rest of the world sees us as arrogant? We just keep acting like our laws are the only ones that are important. At least we are consistent since we are doing the same thing to the UN Security council.
    • Is it any wonder why the rest of the world sees us as arrogant? We just keep acting like our laws are the only ones that are important.

      Please, find the Judge's decision and read it. Others may think we're arrogant, but you can't make that kind of blanket statement without reading what the Judge actually said. Judges aren't dumb--they understand the implications behind their decisions better than you or I do. Do you actually think that the Judge, who went to law school, thinks that it's ok to break in to foreign computers but not ok for foreigners to break in to ours? Even if that's the case (and I doubt it is), surely he'd have reasons much better than that--he's a Judge.

      Sheeesh. It's amazing how quickly wildly speculative and completely unsupported anti-American statements get modded up here. This is as bad as "we need to nuke those ! You don't mess with the USA!"

      I do think you're point about the UN Security Counsel can be supported (though I disagree with it), but making a huge conclusion out of a statement from a post on Slashdot that has no references or anything to back it up is ridiculous.

      • Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA (Score:5, Informative)

        by thelexx ( 237096 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @01:18PM (#4393886)
        Have you read it? Please post a link if you have, I can't find it. What I can find are several articles with statements like these:

        From http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_312763.html
        The men claim the FBI acted improperly by covertly stealing their passwords and using that information to gather evidence against them.

        Their lawyers contend that all material obtained from the computers should be suppressed ahead of any trial.

        Seattle District Judge John Coughenour rejected the motion on the grounds that "the (FBI) agents had good reason to fear that if they did not copy the data, (the) defendant's co-conspirators would destroy the evidence".

        He also added privacy rights contained within the Fourth Amendment do not extend to individuals or property located outside the US.

        From http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=5 82&e=1&cid=582&u=/nm/20021005/wr_nm/tech_russianha cker_dc
        Russian's state security service, the FSB, lodged a complaint against the FBI earlier this year, alleging that the FBI didn't have authorization to break into a computer system in Russia and download files.

        The FBI countered, and the judge agreed, that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions.

        Seems pretty clear the judge is saying that the FBI doesn't need to follow the laws of either our own country or those of any other nation in an international pursuit of 'justice'.

        • He also added privacy rights contained within the Fourth Amendment do not extend to individuals or property located outside the US.

          In a wierd and twisted way this makes sense. The BIll of Rights (and the constitution as a whole) technicaly only applies to american citizens or those people that are permitted as gueats in this country. Of course, by sticking strictly to that definition, we sort of kill all credability to our "Freedom and justice for all" slogan.
          • In a wierd and twisted way this makes sense. The BIll of Rights (and the constitution as a whole) technicaly only applies to american citizens or those people that are permitted as gueats in this country.

            Please point out where in the constitution does it say that it applies to US citizens only?

            Can't find it? I thought so.

    • Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LinuxInDallas ( 73952 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:43AM (#4393498)
      Say what you want. This person was "stealing credit card numbers and other personal information." How would you like to be one of those people whose credit card information was stolen? What is the governemnt supposed to do? Sit around and let us get ripped off by foreign crackers? I for one don't think so. Every time the subject of spam is brought up on slashdot we are all about going after them with everything we have regardless of what it takes. What this guy was doing is far worse, he deserved what he got.

      • Only super-power != ruler of the whole world (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Gerry Gleason ( 609985 ) <gerry&geraldgleason,com> on Saturday October 05, 2002 @12:02PM (#4393582)
        It seems that's what a lot of americans, particularly ones with power in Washington think. If we want to have influence on legal matter beyond our borders, then perhaps we should participate in the world more and not just go our own way, or act unilaterally.

        We need more uniform treatment of these legal matters in a networked world. It shouldn't be ok for one nation to create laws that protect criminals in their jurisdiction, but you have to be careful with this. If the legal justification of the FBIs actions is say, the DMCA, it's really not reasonable to extend that to every nation. Reasonable legislatures can handle this issue differently, and the FBI should use the Russian standard for actions taken in their country.

        How is it right for a US judge to decide which foreign laws do and don't apply to the FBI in a foreign country? This requires an international framework, and there is no way around that. Anything else suggests that US laws and US citizens are above everyone else. Get a grip, your in a world with many voices and they need to be respected.

        • In a world increasingly networked together, boundries and laws blur together into a rather ugly mess. Perhaps it is time for a world government. Unfortunately, there is far too much difficulty in establishing one. First and foremost, what structure should it take? Do we allow countries to exist with their own governments and each vote on a world leader? Do we try to combine countries into the same structure as the US, and have a world government divided into 3 branches, with the countries acting as "states". Or perhpas we should impliment a Parliment system like the UK.

          Then there's the issues of enforcement, election (or succesion), new laws, old laws, location, power of each participating country, and what to do if a country doesn't want in. The UN was supposed to be a step in this direction, but as we can see, it's fairly weak when it comes to cooperation to get something done.
          • Big deal, building a multi-lateral consensus is hard. As the only remaining super-power, and one that claims to believe in democratic principles, we have a unique responsibility to listen to and respect other voices. This is the opposite of what is happening now. We have a lot of allies that are willing and able to help with this, but they won't just be steamrollered.

  • Russia (Score:2, Interesting)

    by technix4beos ( 471838 )
    Why has Russia been so subdued in the media lately? Is it really because they have been broken by the US, or is something deeper going on?

    US policy makers know some answers, but aren't talking. People in various circles of thought (re: conspiracy) know things, but don't have proof, per se.

    This whole Iraq issue is a big smokescreen. Russia is no longer important. The real issue the American public should be scared of is the recent EU submission by the US, that will not only give more power to the US, but in the long run, make it near to impossible for other countries to counter.

    Scary.

  • Give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:31AM (#4393450) Journal
    Advice: Pick your battles.

    Gorshkov was convicted a year ago on 20 counts of computer crimes, fraud and conspiracy after being accused of helping Alexey Ivanov steal credit card numbers from U.S. online banks, e-commerce companies and Internet service providers, the U.S. Attorney's office in Seattle said.

    Let the Russian government and foreign policy pundits work this one out. This is nothing like the Skylarov case. These were real criminals committing real crimes.

    I hate the government as much as the next guy, but give me a break!

    • Re:Give me a break (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Blkdeath ( 530393 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:43AM (#4393495) Homepage
      Let the Russian government and foreign policy pundits work this one out. This is nothing like the Skylarov case. These were real criminals committing real crimes.
      So what we have here is a case of the US government overstepping their bounds, but it led to the capture and arrest of a genuine criminal. This is certainly a tough one. I'm all for dropping some of the technicalities that allow so many criminals to go free, but then we'd only find ourselves in need of people to police the police, so to speak.

      In retrospect, the FBI perhaps could (should!) have cooperated with the Russian officials, and just might have found themselves with permission to raid the people's computers after sharing evidence. Heck, maybe the Russian officials would have done it for them.

      {down with US foreign policy, aggressive, abusive, obnoxious, etc. rant goes here}

      • So what we have here is a case of the US government overstepping their bounds, but it led to the capture and arrest of a genuine criminal. This is certainly a tough one. I'm all for dropping some of the technicalities that allow so many criminals to go free, but then we'd only find ourselves in need of people to police the police, so to speak.


        These "technicalities" aren't just there to make like life awkward for the prosecution, they're safeguards against the possible abuse of the system.

        Ask yourself this question: What would you rather have, a justice system where only some of the guilty people are punished but no innocent people; or, all the guilty people are punished but consequently some of the innocent people are too. Personally I want to live in a world where the first model is prevelant.

        . Of course, there's a possible third answer: all the guilty people are punished, and none of the innocent people, but I view that as an unlikely scenario.
        • Ask yourself this question: What would you rather have, a justice system where only some of the guilty people are punished but no innocent people; or, all the guilty people are punished but consequently some of the innocent people are too. Personally I want to live in a world where the first model is prevelant.

          In practice with the second model some of the guilty will always escape punishment, they will be the corrupt cops framing up the innocent.
        • Ask yourself this question: What would you rather have, a justice system where only some of the guilty people are punished but no innocent people; or, all the guilty people are punished but consequently some of the innocent people are too. Personally I want to live in a world where the first model is prevelant.
          The unfortunate part of that, however, is the fact that so many actually guilty criminals have used these technicalities to get around the system. How many times have police officers (only human, etc..) bungled a search warrant, or mis-timed (or forgotten) miranda rights (even though so many criminals know them by heart), or DNA, photographic, video, or other evidence either becomes tarnished (human error, etc.), or inadmissable due to some legal technicality?

          Of course, the other end of the spectrum isn't perfect either. There have been stories too numerous to comprehend of innocent people who've spent decades in prison.

          No system is perfect (one person's utopia is another person's dystopia, etc..), but I think the North American justice system is overdue for a significant overhaul.

      • So what we have here is a case of the US government overstepping their bounds, but it led to the capture and arrest of a genuine criminal.

        This is effectivly saying "the end justifies the means". It is generally considered unacceptable for law enforcement to break the law.

        This is certainly a tough one. I'm all for dropping some of the technicalities that allow so many criminals to go free, but then we'd only find ourselves in need of people to police the police, so to speak.

        What about the technicality of criminals getting away their crimes because they are "police"? As appears to be the case here.

    • Re:Give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @12:06PM (#4393596) Homepage Journal
      This is nothing like the Skylarov case. These were real criminals committing real crimes.
      You're missing the point. Yes, I agree with you that stealing credit card numbers should be illegal -- in any country -- while reverse engineering document encoding shouldn't be illegal -- in any country. But the point is that governments set the laws that define what is and isn't illegal within their own borders (a pretty fair definition of what a government is) and that agents of other governments are (or should be) just as liable as anyone else when they break those laws.

      Imagine the outcry in the US if a) a member of the Russian national police (what used to be the KGB -- can't remember what they're calling it now, but it's basically the same people doing the same job) hacked into US computers to catch someone doing anything that was illegal under Russian law, whether or not it was a crime in the US; or b) a US citizen traveling in Russia was arrested for doing something in the US which was a crime in Russia but not the US. Can you imagine? We'd very possibly be at war the next day.

  • New slogan to appear on US currency (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dubiousmike ( 558126 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:32AM (#4393451) Homepage Journal
    do as we say, not as we do

  • Slight difference. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mesozoic ( 134277 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:32AM (#4393452)
    Here, you have government espionage going on from within the US, against someone in Russia. If they break any laws, tough shit, they're espionage. It's not like Russia can do anything about it, especially since they would like to remain a favored American trading partner.

    Meanwhile, if you are a private American citizen, break some Russian laws over here, then fly to Moscow, they'd probably arrest you a la Sklyarov. Dmitry Sklyarov did the reverse: he broke American laws in Russia, then entered America's borders, and was arrested.

    International law has always been spotty on these matters, and the Internet has aggravated the situation even worse. But it's hard to draw a parallel between Sklyarov did and what the FBI did, because they are very different circumstances.
    • Russian's state security service, the FSB, lodged a complaint against the FBI earlier this year, alleging that the FBI didn't have authorization to break into a computer system in Russia and download files.

      The FBI countered, and the judge agreed, that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions.

      The article here said:

      They also mention how a U.S. judge found that the FBI wasn't breaking any laws in breaking into a Russian computer system, despite the fact that they were breaking a Russian law doing so.

      The subtle yet immensly pertinent difference has been completely lost to everyone posting here. Now it's a complete freebie for anyone wanting to up their karma. All you have to say is, "No wonder everyone thinks Americans are jerks."

      • Precisely. Keep in mind that the FSB (Federal Security Service) is basically Russia's reincarnation of the KGB. They would do everything in their power, including hacking into American computers, if it were considered a necessity for one of their own missions. The fact that they are publicly denouncing this behavior is analogous to the Chinese complaining about our spy planes near their borders.

        They play spy games on us, we play spy games on them. That's simply how it works. The only difference is that in America, the FBI actually discloses things like this when their investigation is finished. In Russia, if the FSB hacked your computer, they'd never say. Period.

  • A little less bias, please. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:33AM (#4393455) Journal
    They also mention how a U.S. judge found that the FBI wasn't breaking any laws in breaking into a Russian computer system, despite the fact that they were breaking a Russian law doing so.

    Judges aren't stupid. If you're going to say something as bold as that, please provide a link to a court ruling where the reasons for the decision are made. With such a wording, and no support, the statement comes off as "Yankee judges think we have the right to hack into any computer system in the world 'cause we own the Internet," which is no doubt the intention.

    Such a statement may very well be true, but please provide a link to where the Judge explains himself. He's probably a lot smarter than most of us. Even without beeing tech-saavy any judge would quickly pick up on the implications behind being able to break in to foreign systems without impunity.

    • Yes, the judge might be a lot, lot smarter than most of us - possibly all of us. Sadly, being smart has never implied being fair and being just.
    • I agree the original post is just another editorial troll, but there's no reason to assume that judges aren't as stupid or biased as anyone with equivalent education. They just know more about the letter of the law. The argument from authority is usually a bad one.
      • No, I tihnk we can assume judges aren't stupid. "Biased, bigoted, make mistakes, work from thier own view point, have thier own adjendad" you can argue on aa case by case basis, but judges are rarely stupid.

  • Strange definition of pity (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:34AM (#4393458)
    "Taking pity on Gorshkov's family, they sentenced Gorshkov to 3 years in prison and a fine of nearly $700,000 USD"

    With pity like this, who needs enemies?
  • Ah, once again, the principle of Enforceable Jurisdiction has come into play.

  • Hmmm... I wonder if they had a warrant... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:37AM (#4393468)

    The bureau created a fake company, called "Invita," and asked the Russians to come to Seattle for job interviews. The men were asked to prove their skills and given permission to scan an Invita computer network for vulnerabilities. The computers they used had software on them that logged every keystroke and FBI agents were able to later grab the men's passwords and download evidence off their computer network in Russia.

    Interesting that they used human intelligence [HUMINT] to gain the passwords. Once they had the passwords, however, I wonder if they got [or needed] a warrant to search the Russian network.

    If an agent were to lift a key, make a wax impression of it, return the key, and use the wax impression to make a duplicate of the key, it seems like he would still need a warrant before he could enter the door [and the premises behind it] that the key unlocked.

    PS: For all you girlie-boyz with your panties tied up in knots, THESE RUSSKIES WERE STEALING CREDIT CARD NUMBERS!!! THEY ARE FELONS, NOT HEROES!!!

    • Re:Hmmm... I wonder if they had a warrant... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Captain_Stupendous ( 473242 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @12:00PM (#4393578) Homepage
      Of course their fscking felons! Bad! Bad! But so what? Due process doesn't take a back seat because "I just know that guy is guilty". Your point about warrants is a good one, however. If the fBI had all the warrants and permissions they needed, then why did the case "prompt a sharp rebuke from Moscow"? Why did they have to lure the suspects here under false pretenses in order to arrest them? Don't get me wrong (mandatory disclaimer, before GreyWolf calls me a terrorist), but shouldn't the FBI have gone through the proper channels, and had the culprits arrested, tried and convicted in Russia?
    • Interesting point. I don't think the US is obligated to care about tthe civil liberties of foergin nationals in countries that aren't here, so I'd be suprised if US law says the FBI needs a search warrent in te first place. If it did, what juristiction would it have to go through to get one?
    • Interesting that they used human intelligence [HUMINT] to gain the passwords. Once they had the passwords, however, I wonder if they got [or needed] a warrant to search the Russian network.

      Except they could not have got a warrent in the first place, unless Russian courts are in the habit of issuing warrents to foreigners.

      For all you girlie-boyz with your panties tied up in knots, THESE RUSSKIES WERE STEALING CREDIT CARD NUMBERS!!! THEY ARE FELONS, NOT HEROES!!!

      Problem is that the people who caught them are just as crooked. If a serial burglar discovered evidence of a murder would they just walk free?

  • extradition? Hypocracy? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:37AM (#4393470) Homepage Journal
    How did the FBI catch this guy? I mean, actually catch him? Extradition? If so, then the Russian government agreed to allow him to be tried in the US.

    If the Russian government felt that the FBI's crimes weren't very much of a big deal.

    Besides Russia isn't exactly a bastion of civil liberties anyway, I'm willing to bet that Russian law enforcement breaks their own laws all the time.

    What the FBI did may have been technicaly illigal, but you have to consider motives and damage as well. Buzz Aldrin didn't get prosicuted when he punched that moon-hoax guy in the face [go.com] and he shouldn't have been.

  • The Institute of Internet Security recently created in Moscow, considering the importance of the new methods used on arresting the two Chelyabinsk hackers, invites the FBI investigators to participate on the conference "International Investigations on Cyberspace". Submission of thesis and demonstration of the new practices will be highly accepted. There should be mentioned that, Russian investigators are eager to learn and apply the new methods due to the new conditions they face on cyberspace and will be very happy to see their american colleagues...
  • "apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia."

    You complain about the discipling of the Russian hackers, yet call for the government officials to be disciplined for the same thing ?

    The only people who can say that the government officials broke the law is the Russian judicial system. If they think the US broke their laws, they should go and prosecute them.

  • reality check (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Raiford ( 599622 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:45AM (#4393504) Journal
    I guess I could quote something old and tired like the people get the government they deserve and it very well my be true; however, there is a cold reality to this current topic. Any other government would have done the same thing (Russian or the rest of the world). Politicians are politicians and people are people. They don't vary much from one geographical region to the next as much as popular belief would have you think. Ideal is basically just a word in the dictionary (and was a toy maker for a while) and a concept that rarely comes close to ever being realized. Expectations of something different will get you dissapointed everytime.

  • 1> Adobe does business in Russia.
    2> Adobe is a US company.
    3> Therefore, Adobe is a US interest.
    4> The ebook cracking software was being distributed worldwide, but specifically, back in the US.

    The judge found, therefore, that the FBI had the right to investigate the Russian company, to build up evidence against the company to show to the Russians for possible extradition. (Nice link on the judges decision, btw)

    So even THEN, the US couldn't touch him until he came to the US.

    I realize everyone wants to bash the US, and I don't care if you want to, but use some common sense. If he had ordered the killings of US citizens, by hiring hitmen in the US, the US would be perfectly justified in hacking into the guys records, and arresting him if he arrived on US soil. The same thing the Russians would do if the roles were reversed.

    While software cracking and murder are not on the same level, the judicial principle is the same.

  • Hipocrisy, American style. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by raretek ( 215909 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:48AM (#4393520)
    "They also mention how a U.S. judge found that the FBI wasn't breaking any laws in breaking into a Russian computer system, despite the fact that they were breaking a Russian law doing so. So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia.""

    Duh. What planet has this person lived on for the last 50 years, that they are shocked by such hipocrisy from the US government? President Bush straight up wants to enforce international law while also simulataneously breaking it and insisting that he or his minions not be prosecuted under it for doing so, all in the name of enforcing it.

    It makes me mad that it takes something like one person going to prison unjustly to open peoples eyes, while the mass starvations of women and children, people whom have never harmed the U.S., are occuring for a petty dictator that the U.S. themselves built up and made strong in the first place.

    Hipocrites. One and all, including myself, that is what we Americans are. And liars, dishonorable, with no respect for other peoples or nations. I mean, we can say nice things about how we supposedly respect others, but OUR deeds speak louder than words.

  • Perhaps the point is jurisdictional? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Erich ( 151 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:50AM (#4393529) Homepage Journal
    If Russians are breaking into computers in the US, the crime is (perhaps, IANAL) committed in the US, and so the US has jurisdiction. If the FBI breaks into Russian computers (without consent from anyone) then, by the same token, the crime would be in Russia. So it would be up to the Russian government to prosecute the FBI (or investigators in the FBI), right?

    Sometimes things aren't so "the-USA-is-really-bad" as Slashdot says they are (and sometimes they are, and sometimes they're probably worse).

    Of course, if we use Law and Order as our legal source (and, though IANAL, I've watched a lot of L&O), then Jack McCoy would say that we have a responsibility to prosecute criminals when their own countries won't, and that as long as an element of the crime was taking place within jurisdiction of the court, the court should have prosecutorial powers. But in the episode where Jack and Carmichael were outside of the Supreme Court and the decision comes out, after attempting to prosecute a foreign diplomat for murder, they (frustratingly) don't tell us what the decision is. D'oh!

  • Can't compare to Skylarov (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KillerBob ( 217953 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @11:57AM (#4393554)
    Can't compare these jokers to Dmitri Skylarov. Skylarov was doing something that's allowed by Russian law, and frankly shouldn't be illegal in America. These jokers were running credit card scams which aren't allowed at all, no matter where you go.

    The Russians objected to the FBI's means of gathering the evidence, not to the prosecution for the crimes themselves. The FBI "hacked" the computers by luring the Russians to the USA under the guise of a job interview, and installing keylogging software on their PC's as they were invited to hack a virtual network that the FBI set up. Using the keylogging software, the FBI was able to get their passwords, and use it to remotely access their computers in Russia. Using this evidence, they were extradited to the USA for prosecution.

    What they did could be called Entrapment, and it could be called Espionage. But I still have to laugh that the l337 h4xx0rz from Russia were dumb enough to allow it to happen. They were running unsecured boxes at home, and for some unearthly reason decided to remotely access those boxes while partaking in an experiment to hack a virtual network in Seattle. Idiots. They get no sympathy at all from me.

    • Goddammit, will people learn how to spell his name? It's SKLYAROV, not SKYLAROV. Y after L, not the other way around. YA is that Cyrillic "backwards R", and when it follows a consonant it simply "softens" it, while dropping the "y" ("j") sound. Since all Ls in English are "soft" anyway, it's best to omit the "Y" when pronouncing the name.

      So it's pronounced "Skla-rOv". Not "skee-lArov". And spelled SKLYAROV.

      Now let me tell you how I feel about that backwards "R" in "Toys-R-Us"...

  • about this "double-standard" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mooredav ( 101800 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @12:00PM (#4393571)

    I think the article doesn't tell the whole story:

    the judge agreed that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions.

    I suspect that the judge's opinion was more like this:

    "It is not my duty as a federal judge in the U.S. to enforce Russian law."

    So it's not an issue for the courts, but for diplomacy. "I'll respect your laws if you respect mine."

  • FBI people better not travel to Russia... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @12:08PM (#4393607)
    I think it would be great if FBI agents who set foot on Russian soil get thrown in jail for cracking. I mean, there is no question they're guilty; they confessed. Off to Siberia with them!

  • American laws (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SlugLord ( 130081 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @12:17PM (#4393638)
    So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia

    Yep. There's no American law against breaking Russian laws. In fact, there's no American law against violating non-American citizens rights that Americans would be guaranteed in the constitution. If you're not an American citizen and you are arrested in the United States, you aren't guaranteed a jury of your peers, etc. Usually the punishment is extradition, but when no country will take you back, you get to rot in American prison without trial for the rest of your life. (Sadly, 60 minutes doesn't post old stories on the internet, so I can't put up a link for more information.)
  • Quite frankly, I have zero sympathy for this guy. He assists in stealing millions of dollars, credit-card fraud, etc. He's just as bad as the executives of Enron and Global Crossings (i.e., Gary Wennig). His actions cost people their life savings.

    So, quite frankly, I feel little pity for him.

    But there are important issues of Sovereignty that arise here, as well as other human rights issues.

    The person of one nation should be subject ONLY to that nations laws. If he does nothing illegal by that nation's laws, he should not be arrested in another nation he visited simply because he did something in his homeland which violated that nations laws. However, when a law violated was one which was common between the two nations, then it does make slightly more sense (to be explained and extrapolated on earlier).

    Consider if China can arrest a US visitor who visits China because that visitor violated Chinese law while in the US. Lets say that the visitor had more than one child, or criticized the Chinese government online, while in the US. Its would be outrageous for the Chinese government to arrest that person; and, if they did, the US government would undoubtedly protest adamently. We wouldn't tolerate that crap. Firstly, this constitutes what is effectively analagous to RETROACTIVE application of the law; it is unconsciable to punish someone for violating a law which they knew not existed and had no obligation to obey in another country.

    There are certain *narrow* cases where international law should allow one nation to arrest the citizens of another while visiting: only in cases where the law that foreigner broke were common to both nations. If a person in Russia arranges for a murder to be committed in the US and travels to the US, we should have the right to arrest him, because what he did is illegal both in the US and in Russia. However, in such cases where nation A arrests a citizen of nation B, that citizen must be trialed by the laws of nation B.

    Thus, Gorshkov very well can be arrested in the US. However, he should be trialed in accord with Russian law, not US law, for good or bad. This means that he gets the same rights (or lack thereeof) that he would get in Russia if he were accused of the same crime, and shall face the same punishment as he'd face in Russia.

    But if a Russian citizen like Skylarov breaks US law while in Russia, and its an activity that the laws of both nations to not ban, then the US shouldn't have authority to trial that person in the US. We should, however, have the right to hold him a reasonable period of time to interrogate him and learn anything we can to prevent such activities in the future (i.e., if he's a member of a mafia ring), and we should have the right to exile him from coming or returning to the US. If he returns, the punishment should be whatever it is we do to those exiled who return.

    This is all very simple and obviously common sense. Apparently, the US government doesn't get it. A government only has sovereignty over its own nation. The US has no sovereignty over what goes on in Russia or anyplace else in the world. We certainly wouldn't want our citizens travelling to China to be arrested and trialed by Chinese law. There's also very simple human rights issues at stake. It is unreasonable (and in some cases impossible) to ask any one person to obey the laws of several different nations at once, while only residing in one. It is a human rights violation to trial someone under a law which he had no obligation to find out existed (i.e., Russians have no obligation to know US law).

    On a similar vein, a person (while in a nation) should obey the laws of that nation, and the laws of his homeland shall not follow him to other nations. That would be asking someone to obey the laws of two nations at once, something which is unreasonable and in some cases impossible. However, if someone violates a law in one nation and there's no corresponding law in his homeland, he should be deported (exiled) and sent back to his homeland. We wouldn't want a US citizen being put in jail for life in China because while in China he said something critical of the Chinese government.
    • The person of one nation should be subject ONLY to that nations laws. If he does nothing illegal by that nation's laws, he should not be arrested in another nation he visited simply because he did something in his homeland which violated that nations laws.

      You can't be serious! In Japan the age of consent is 14, in Moslem countries it's even lower! In the UK the legal drinking age is 18. There's not exactly such a thing as copyright in China, so is it OK for chinese to come across and start manufacturing CDs? During WWII would it have been ok for the germans to go into America and carry on 'purifying'?

      You're crazy! If anything they should have to follow both sets of laws.

      The situation of a person of nationality X in country Y breaking those laws is rather different to a person of nationality X in country X breaking laws of country Y. Nearly every country demands foreigners to follow all their laws whilst in their country; but there are rare exceptions for pragmatic reasons.

      • Obviously, you did NOT read what I said.

        A person should obey the laws of whatever nation they're in. But if someone's in China and (while in China) does something which is illegal by US law, then comes to the US, (s)he shouldn't be arrested for that. However, if while in the US, they break US law, they should be arrested.

        What I'm talking about is person of nationality X in country X doing something which is illegal in country Y, then travelling to country Y and being arrested. This is a violation of sovereignty and human rights.

        If person X of nationality X travels to nation Y, they should obey the laws of nation Y, and not be expected to follow any of the laws of nation X. We can not ask a person to obey the laws of two nations, because those two laws may conflict.

        The laws of the US shouldn't follow its citizens wherever they go. When US citizens leave US territory, they are no longer obliged to obey US laws, but only the laws of whatever nation they're on.

  • and the real criminals are going free (Score:3, Insightful)

    by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @12:21PM (#4393654)
    accused of helping Alexey Ivanov steal credit card numbers from U.S. online banks, e-commerce companies and Internet service providers

    It's the "on-line banks, e-commerce companies and Internet service providers" that are putting their customers at risk through shoddy security. We can spend billions on arresting "cyber criminal" and "hackers", if those companies don't get their systems to be secure, it just won't end.

    There is no reason for any bank or company to leave their systems in a state that allows a "hacker" to break into them--making systems secure against break-ins from the outside is not costly. Failing to protect against outside break-ins is negligent and should subject the company to civil and possibly criminal liability. Companies should not be able to shrug off poor security with a simple "oops", and the tax payer should not have to foot the bill to have the police and legal system solve a problem that is much more easily and cheaply prevented before it ever occurs.

  • Wow (Score:3, Funny)

    by JohnG ( 93975 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @12:24PM (#4393667)
    "So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia." That's funny, I thought Dmitry was arrested in the United States. You learn something new every day.
    Maybe the congress critters would take our crys for rights more seriously if so many of us didn't run around with tin foil hats.

  • It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dhogaza ( 64507 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @12:45PM (#4393775) Homepage
    So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia

    This isn't really accurate. They were busted when on US soil after coming here after falling for an FBI ruse. If they'd remained on Russian soil, they would've never been arrested by us. If asked politely, I suppose there's some chance the Russians would've detained and later extradited them, but once in our hands there was no reason to test that theory.

    Likewise, if the FBI agents who broke the Russian law visit Russia, they may be busted for having broken Russian law. In theory Russia could ask the US to arrest and later extradite the FBI agents so they can be tried. In practice it doesn't appear as though the Russians care enough to raise a big stink about it. The Russians who were busted were, after all, common criminals.

    There seems to be a certain symmetry to the picture, no?

  • How would we feel... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by teetam ( 584150 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @12:55PM (#4393809) Homepage
    How would we feel if Saudi Arabia arrested Larry Flint (let us say he is on a visit there) because pr0n is illegal there and he peddles it here in America (and through the Internet to Saudi too)?

    More realistically, how did we react last year when the Taliban arrested three Americans who had gone there to spread christianity and convert muslims? It is illegal in Afghanistan, so did we let them die?

    We must stop acting as if American law, and only American law, applies to the rest of the world too. This might answer a lot of "why"s!

    • I would feel that Larry Flint would be a dumbass for visiting Saudi Arabia, given that he's probably aware of the efficiency of their legal system and it basis in Sharia.

      Similar opinions apply to missionaries who are so naive as to try to convert Muslim fanatics, like the members of the Abu Sayyaf and the Taliban. If you're going into a region that considers you a criminal (or will, if you're about to piss them off), you shouldn't be surprised when they enforce their beliefes on you.

  • I find it disturbing... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by forkboy ( 8644 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @01:31PM (#4393936) Homepage
    Does it sit well with anyone here that someone who cracked into FBI computers gets the same prison sentence as Chris Tresco? What bullshit.

    I mean, come on....threat to national security vs. (arguably) lost revenue.

Slashdot Top Deals

GREAT MOMENTS IN HISTORY (#7): April 2, 1751 Issac Newton becomes discouraged when he falls up a flight of stairs.

Close