Slashdot Mirror
Judge OKs FBI Hack Of Russian Computers
SilentChris writes: "A U.S. judge recently ruled that the FBI could obtain hackers' passwords and data, through the use of sniffer programs, despite the hackers being overseas. A couple of notes: the judge ruled the hackers should have had "no expectation of privacy" when they sat down to the (covert) FBI terminals, and the investigators needed a warrant to view the data -- but they didn't need one to copy it."
Those silly Russians...all they need to do is claim that their data are artistic property, copyright them, and then DMCA the FBI's sorry ass. Fight fire with fire says I.
Quote 2:
Coughenour rejected defense arguments that the FBI's actions "were unreasonable and illegal because they failed to comply with Russian law," saying that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions.
I'm sorry but I see a problem here. It would seem that either US law or Russian law would apply here. If neither applies, then how have these hackers "broken the law"?
It seems like the FBI got to pick and choose the laws they wanted to enforce and follow and the judge supported them.
Obtaining a warrant after copying the evidence seems not only irregular but probably not legal.
can you tap my phone line, and just not listen without a warrant?
or walk into my house, but keep your eyes close without a warrant?
etc...
how about you kiss my ass, and try not to taste it without a warrant!
Any program run by FBI agent acts on his behalf (it is not a person but a tool), therefore if a program accessed the data, it must be legally equivalent to the agent actually viewing it. That also should apply to a program that transferred the data from the computer in Russia, so after "downloading" FBI definitely is just as much in the possession of the data as after viewing.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Another possible reversal in this can be used by Russians' defense lawyers -- Russians themselves can claim that they didn't "view" the data either, and just wanted to use it as a proof to the company where they "stole" it that their server was vulnerable and required fixing, so there was no no actual intent to commit a crime to begin with.
BTW, in this particular case it may even be true -- guys most likely just wanted to get a good-paying computer security/sysadmin job in their "victim" company and "stolen" the data to demonstrate that their job was needed, "victims" got offended and asked FBI, then FBI interpreted it as a blackmail and started all the spin about "terrorists" and "mafia".
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Barbed wire is perfectly legal, traps designed to injure intruders, such as electrified door handles etc are not.
Similarly, an injured trespasser might possibly bring a civil action for damages if he can demonstrate that you have unsafe premises. The classic example is a child trespassing on a construction site and being injured by improperly secured building materials. An adult trespasser half-drowning themselves in a swimming pool would not have much chance of winning such an action.
On a separate note, and perhaps pertaining more to the topic at hand, wire tap evidence is inadmissable in UK courts, and entrapment by law enforcement officers is unlawful - if entrapment can be demonstrated by the defence, the case will be usually be thrown out.
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
... if we cant even follow our own rules when dealing with other countries citizens why should other countries citizens try to follow ours? If i know something is illegal in another country - i'm not going to do it, but if that country is blatently ignoring their own laws dealing with me, then screw em.
Shadus
Has anyone found any other (human) languages that have helped them get jobs in the tech industry?
I'm not sure I like the idea of being prying eyes, but the FBI could be an exciting tech job if nothing else.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense.
so I'll delete the tags and play the MP3's randomly :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
So shrink wrap it as software and add a heinous EULA, then you can sue the FBI for violating DMCA and de-crypting your 'software'
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
regarding DB's and the accumulation of data is shortsighted and WRONG :)
:)
BTW nice web page
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I've got a friend going to Queen's University. She went down to Washington D.C. last year for some sort of model-U.N. thing, and she decided that while she was there, she'd like to go do some reading at the Library of Congress.
Anyhow, to do that, she had to fill out some sort of application. Apparently, when she missed a couple of fields on the application, the person processing it did a quick search, and asked, "Were you born in Edmonton?"
My friend, understandably, was rather shocked, but said yes, she was.
The Americans already have a ton of data on Canadian citizens. I don't think my friend was really exceptional: eighteen at the time, a student, just out of high school. Despite being fairly average in most respects, they had all her basic information, and only who knows what else (maybe the fact that she's got some rather strong left-wing views? who knows).
I'm not a paranoid person. I don't have anything to hide, but at the same time, there's something a little worrisome about all this. Oh, and about your e-mail? Chances are that they've already archived it.
hahaha... If I had moderator points, this would be marked "Funny" right now.
Well, by the same token you don't really have an expectation of privacy when using an unencrypted cell phone on the public airwaves, but you can still get in trouble for scanning them anyway. We just need our already wacky laws to catch up to the Internet...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I totally agree, and in fact it's even worse - if you're committing "police actions" on the soil of another nation, you're really breaching that nation's sovereignty - in a certain sense this is an act of war. Which makes sense, because the only way you can really be assured of enforcing certain laws in a place which doesn't acknowledge them is to effectively take control of the application of law in that area.
In the end this is just the ugliest of a long line of ugly-Americanisms (and I speak as a U.S. citizen myself). Maybe if we weren't so damn arrogant half the time, the rest of the world would have a little more respect for the other half of the time when the U.S. gets preachy. Talk about your bipolar disorders :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
But it's not intended to be "justice". Centralized power acts to maintain it's central position. Not for the benefit of any other entity. This is why the "balance of powers" within the constitution is so important. You really start noticing it after it gets out of whack for awhile.
P.S.: Don't expect Russia to object unless the FBI stepped on their corns. They also are a centralized authority, and will only act to preserve their centrality (which includes power, image, social status, etc.)
P.P.S: You might try to trace down your exact definition of justice, and where you obtained it. It can be quite an interesting search.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Please don't attribute your morals to others.
And I am quite suspicious of your other rationalizations. Not that it matters.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Here in the UK, we have stupid laws like barbed wire fences are almost illegal and if I have 10m fences around my pool (or any other, what I would call reasonable safety measures) and someone breaks in and drowns it's my fault!
I happen to think that the FBI hackers were right. I'm tired of criminals trying to claim that their individual rights can supercede a vitim of crime's rights during the committing of a crime.
I'm not saying the FBI should have carte blanch; get a warrent (or whatever) and then do "the search". Looking for evidence doesn't have to be done in person does it?
However, if a personal search for evidence was required overseas, the US would surely have sought the cooperation of the native law enforcement autorities wouldn't they? Did that happen here?
Craig.
I think you're missing Lord Omlette's pun here. "Lawless" == no laws. Hence, the suspects could not have broken any, regardless of their actions.
I think what would be very interesting, if the same thing had been done to say, a bunch of American script kiddies. Maybe they could end up in a Thai or maybe a Chinese jail. I wonder if the consensus would be the same especially since the USA opposes the formation of the world courtfor war crimes.
I can't see why they just didn't go into Russia and haul them and their machines out. The precedent was set in Panama.
when you're up to your arse in alligators, it is difficult to remember your original job was to drain the swamp!!!!!
The judge did not rule that the FBI is not subject to Russian law, only that the evidence could not be excluded.
That is, in essence, exactly what he ruled. You can't enter evidence that was illegally obtained, therefore the judge considers this legal. Since they did violate a Russian law, they must not be subject.
they had no reasonable expectation to Fourth Amendment privacy.
Several people have brought that up... I don't see what that has to do with anything (other than that it was mentioned in the article.) So they have no expectation, fine. The FBI knows what their password is. That gives them no right to *use* it, though. You can bet that if I shoulder-surf someone's password when they are using my machine, and then use their password to get into their account, I'd be arrested. I'd be charged with illegal possesion of an access device (the password) and computer trespassing (no permission to be on that machine.)
The feds can hack the Russian computers because the Russian laws don't apply to them. They were after the Russian hackers because they had broken into US computers. Their laws don't apply to us, but ours apply to them.
I hope the FBI agents don't fall for the "lure them into Russia and arrest them" trick.
<sarcasm>Hey, if you're on the street and you're going somewhere, I've got a "reasonable" suspicion that you're going to do something illegal. Therefore, I can search you. If you're in your own house and you leave for work one minute late, I've got a "reasonable" suspicion that you're destroying evidence. If you travel to work using anything other than your usual route, I've got a "reasonable" suspicion that you're hiding something. </sarcasm>
Careful, but if you aren't applying a rigorous interpretation of "unreasonable", you're opening the door to a police state.
And yes, all of those searches did in fact happen in the former USSR, a police state. It was considered completely reasonable if you diverted one iota from your normal schedule.
Very smart move. If possible, I would like to congratulate the judge for his wise decision in person.
You see, America's traditional values are being completely laughed at by the commies. In the past, there was fun, pro-market hacking. That happy situation changed when access to the U.S. Online Network was opened to development countries. Teenage commies and their relatives now have the opportunity to put in risk our way of life, the safety of our children, and everything else we fought for over hundreds of years, by displaying offensive and satanic material over the Internet. It is something that abhores me and my family.
These soviet hackers are a direct threat to the safety of your family. Don't let them takeover America. Support foreign prosecution of hackers.
--
I have no sig at all.
Consider that companies like Microsoft and consortiums like the RIAA are on a rampage because, unlike smaller efforts, they can BUY the laws and legal prescedents they want to ensure their grip on the market.
So poop brown is a pretty good choice of colors for anything law-related.
I think what Judge Coughenour is saying is that yes, the FBI agents' actions were against Russian law, but that that was something for the Russian cops to investigate/charge/bust 'em for, and the Russian courts to sentence 'em for, not the FBI.
Which is to say, if you're an FBI agent cracking Russian computers, stay out of Russia. (Well, unless your name is Robert Phillip Hannsen and you're a mole working for the Russians ;-)
It appears so. (I'm not saying it's a good precedent either, but...)
> So what happens when the russian cops file extredition papers with the US state depertment, to extradite the FBI agents who commmitted these crimes? Do you think they'd be honored? Sounds like an international incident waiting to happen.
Sounds like a calculated risk, one the FBI was willing to take. Knowing the FBI, they probably never bothered to check, but I'm sure a phone call to the Department of State would have clarified things pretty quickly: "No, they probably won't charge you, and if they do, we'll smooth it out for you."
>So the US law doesn't apply to the alleged criminals actions/data, and the russian law doesn't apply to the agents
ah, but only US law actually counts. All other laws from other countries are conspiracy to overthrow the USA's leadership-role in human rights and free trade. As an american, you cannot be arrested for breaking other country's laws. If they do anyway, they're wrong and we will start tradesanctions, to help them see the error of their ways before they hurt american business.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
...remember when the US invaded another country, killing hundreds of innocent people, to arrest a suspected drug dealer?
Judges would likely favor anything LEA's have to say to them in order to make their (the Fed's) case easier. The same applies to the case where the feds placed a keystroke logger on a mobster's pc. Sure the mobster sent information which were supposed to be a client attorney priveledge, but the it still didn't matter.
See what happens with technology, is judges, most lawyers, shit even the many in the FBI don't understand it, so many LEA's will pull strings, or distort things so out of proportion most judges, and DA's will simply think Big Brother is being honest about it all, and they sign warrants, etc.
In all fairness sure the FBI should have arrested the guys, but by breaking into their computers, they're no better than the Russian hackers themselves, by any means. Who gave them the approval on the Russian side to do so? You can't have things single sided all the time, or its junk justice plain and simple. If you claim to play things by the book then play it by the book and respect law, not another Big Brother distortion of what's law, they didn't write it, and they sure don't follow it.
The Justice system in regards to comp crime is a joke, and with the EU signing those Cybercrime bills things will only get worse, as LEA's (law enforcement agencies for those unfamiliar) will manipulate the judiciary system in worse ways than ever.
Want Root?
No, it's more like making possession legal, but using (being under the influence) illegal. Distrubutinon (how you get it) isn't the issue, possession is.
...the investigators needed a warrant to view the data -- but they didn't need one to copy it."
This is the sort of nonsense that arises when too many laws are created and when people are forced to abide only by the letter of the law. What is to prevent the FBI from viewing the copied data? Will they tell the judge about it if they do? Of course not. They'll view the data and if they find something interesting, they'll obtain a warrant after the fact.
Well, yes. Don't some states have a lower minimum age for bartending than for drinking?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I am not a lawyer, but my law classes in college taught me that seizure via probable cause is still a plausible option to law enforcement agencies.
Seriously, people, grow up. Life is not a big huge conspiracy, what the FBI did was reasonable. They had good reason to suspect these guys, they then set them up and caught them.
Do you really think that they could do this any other way? Of course not, the evidence would most likely disappear before they could get their hands on it, just as the parent poster pointed out.
With that said, there is PLENTY of other things to complain about concerning the FBI. Personally, I would like to see the FBI, NSA, and CIA dissolved and create new organizations for the security of this nation, with input from the public and complete disclosure of how things will work. But please, complain about the things that are worth complaining about, in this case, the FBI was trying to do the right thing.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Did at any point in time, anything associated with the crime possibly cross an international line? Yes? CIA.
FBI = Within the US (but not out)
CIA = Outside the US (but not in)
You know, grep has a -c option.
-no broken link
First, consider the sniffer. You go to another country, at an unknown company, where they say they want to watch how you crack systems, and you demonstrate how. I have to agree with the judge that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Second, the abnormal sequence of penetrate, copy, then get warrant, then read is reasonable by analogy to other warrant exceptions. After arresting someone the police are permitted to seize or protect items that might reasonably be expected to be destroyed during the wait for a warrant. It is like seizing the automobile of a fleeing suspect. You can't get the warrant in advance because you do not know what car will be used. So you seize the car at the time of arrest, then get the warrant, then inspect the car. This abnormal sequence shows such care, and is reasonable considering that knowledge of the arrests might quickly trigger destruction of data. Penetrate and copy must be done fast. Then they can wait for the warrant before reading.
The option of warrant before arrest was not reasonable because prior to the arrest they lacked sufficient information to identify what they wanted to seize. It would have been an unacceptably generic and wide ranging warrant.
That's great. It's like making it legal to sell drugs, but illegal to use them.
Got Rhinos?
f.
This in turn means if these men had been Americans, the whole FBI hack would have been illegal.
So, essentially, yes, you broke your own laws. Even if you found some judical weasel arguing "rules dont apply to bloody foreigners".
f.
I'm sure u owe them far more in overflight fees :)
What I've been wondering is, what happens if Russia issues charges against the FBI agents for illegal use of the computer(s) in Russia that the agents broke into? Can they apply pressure on the US to extradite the FBI agents to face charges under Russian law?
Of course, this begs the question of whether Russia has any laws that would be applicable...
It's tough for Federal computers to be THAT covert; whichever computers they hacked into in the first place probably said this:
- -----
U.S. GOVERNMENT COMPUTER
If you are not authorized to access this
system, disconnect now.
YOU SHOULD HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
By continuing, you consent to your
keystrokes and data content
being monitored.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
--------------------------------------------
Did at any point in time, anything associated with the crime possibly cross a state line? Yes? FBI.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
If Russia's a 'lawless' place, and these guys didn't have any mentors to help them tell right from wrong, did they knowingly engage in crime?
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
Let's say I have a computer, and for whatever reason a law enforcement agency is told that my computer may have something they want. They could storm into my home and take my personal posessions, and there is nothing I could do about it, since they have not viewed the data yet. This isn't anything new. If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to suspect a crime has been commited and the evidence needs to be collected or will be destroyed that law enforcement officer can seize the evidence without a warrent. If the seizure was without probable cause then the evidence would be thrown out of court during the trial. At this point it become the job of the officer to prove that there was not time to get a warrent.
The Economics of Website Security
Let's see, the FBI is chartered for which type of surveillence..
a) domestic
b) international
for those of you who guessed 'b' go watch Sneakers again, the FBI is only chartered for DOMESTIC surveillance.. Granted this isn't a true CIA type of operation but then again maybe it is. We aren't in the Cold War with Russia anymore because it doesn't exist! I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if this was a russian mob outfit. I wouldn't be suprised if these guys were incredibly guilty, however; I don't thing our offices have any f'scking clue as to how to deal with this kind of crime.
Fact is if it's an international problem we had a whole team (CIA) to deal with it and they were well versed on how to deal with international law. If Russia were still unified and had a ton of nuke's still pointed at us with a grim determination to preserve it's stance we would be scared shiteless right now.
Might doesn't make right, we have no right treating them as we are. the lowest common denominator needs to apply. What? No search and seizure protection in your country?? well we have it so by default it should apply to you guys.
Just wait until this same scenario happens an it's China on the other side, then GW will be over there pretending not to apologize while politely apologizing as our stealth recon planes scan to make sure a hailstorm of ICBM's aren't suddenly heading our way.
ne0
all your servers are belong to us!
hile they demonstrated their cracking ability (presumably an illegal act in itself).
That was not the case here. They were not asked to demonstrate an illegal activity, they were asked to access their home computers for some reason (left them running while going to states? weird). By the way, isn't this kind of behaviour by FBI considered to be entrapment and is illegal in itself?
You can't handle the truth.
I can copy anything I want and it is legal. But I really am not going to use it without getting permission (paying for it)
You can't handle the truth.
- If we allow law enforcement agencies to behave unlawfully, then we can go back to torturing prisoners and concentration camps: in the substance, there's no difference.
Normally, any Nazi reference is the quintessential end-of-discussion, but I'll respond anyway: when law enforcement agencies behave unlawfully, they are still held accountable. If the FBI hadn't been able to obtain the warrant, it would probably have been possible to sue the FBI for invasion of privacy. The fact that they did obtain the warrant proves that they did not behave inappropriately. The defendants will surely appeal if there is any doubt.- . But imagine borrowing a friend's car, then getting crashed into by a drunk truck driver. Should you not be guaranteed personal safety in spite of the car you're driving not being yours?
I don't see how that comparison works. Anyway, every company I've worked for has added the disclaimer that "this system is for business use only..." and can be monitored. I understand that what I do on that computer is not private. Don't argue that the FBI doesn't have similar disclaimers - I'm certain they are smarter than that.- Even if I have nothing to hide, the law enforcement ageny might think I had something to hide and do all sorts of nasty things to me, for example. And just because someone acts in a fashion that you (or the law enforcement agency) consider strange doesn't mean they've got something to hide, and this completely subjective notion should definitely not suffice for them to start hacking into my computer
Yeah, I definitely agree with you there, and don't worry - you're still safe from that type of inspection. Past rulings have shown that, for example, it's not legal to create a blockade a street on New Year's Eve to stop and check for drunk drivers. If you have the expectation of privacy, then you still do.There was no expectation of privacy when these hackers used FBI computers.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
Dear Citizens: The FBI wants your help. If you suspect someone out there is hacking, or comitting any crime, please set up a sniffer and try to get their passwords, break into their computers and then send in the data (don't look at it) to us. Please do your part for uncle sam.
They should have used 31337 h4x0r m4g1c to spot the feds' sniffer and reverse engineered it to write "CRASH N BURN" on a skyscraper.
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
Sounds like the government have run out of foes to fight and they are starting back at the begining.... "REDS UNDER THE BED"... or in your computer this time.....
....Be careful of dueling with dragons - you are crunchy and taste good with tomato sauce....
Make no mistake, they are crooks; the captured files revealed that they were the people responsible for several blackmail operations.
;)
In states ruled by law, evidence that is obtained illegally is itself illegal. If we need judges to declare ways to obtain evidenc legal (when normal law would prohibit it) then you don`t have a state ruled by law, but a state ruled by judges. And I`d hate to see THEM being responsible for declaring WWIII
Anyway, seems to me the US has no business in setting things straight in Russia. Just like it had no business sending spyplanes over China, or tapping into European strategic, economic and diplomatic communication channels. Diplomacy, yes, action, no. If crooks are 'hiding on foreign soil' (and a crook is not a crook untill _prooven_ guilty, a fundamental human right) then they loose all form of jurisdiction and the US should tackle the problem in other ways. So that evidence smells. Besides no body had the chance to appeal the judge`s(state`s) decision in the first place. There is no constitutional ground for declaring this act legal, and the state is acting on it`s own, without foreign countries approving or being aware of this.
Crooks are to be dealth with, but I don`t believe you`ll ever get to exterminate the problem, and certainly not by engaging foreign secret operations without foreign authorities approving or even being aware of this.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
Perhaps the problem is that the US system of search warrants is wrong.
n sk y.htm
Here's an interesting viewpoint.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/10/budia
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
So by extension, is Carnivore allowed to copy and archive all of my email in case at some point in time the FBI gets a court order allowing them ro read it?
I mean, I'm canadian on @Home and my email passes through primarily american co-located servers, so I'm sure my privacy will be respected to the utmost by the american investigators, right?
"So on one hand, honey is an amazingly sophisticated and efficient food source. On the other hand it's bee backwash."
I must disagree with your second point where you liken this situation to borrowing a friend's car. The computers they used were owned (or at least borrowed) by the FBI and they were warned when the logged in that their actions would be monitored. So the analogy doesn't quite hold in this scenario. You would have to borrow your friend's squad car, then get busted for storing marajuana in it. The FBI did not even bend the law in this situation. These criminals freely and willingly gave them access to all their passwords and accounts by using the computers provided to them by the FBI. They even went so far as to trick these guys into coming to the US to do it.
After their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect Hungry.
Let's face it. The government has always done whatever the hell it wants to do to catch people doing whatever it thinks they shouldn't be doing. Even if we rant and rave our arses off until we win this fight, there'd be 100 people arested right here in the US unjustly who were searched illegally and will never get so much as a fair hearing, much less an appeal hearing.
My suggestion is this: fix the ever-lovin' legal system from the ground up instead of continuing to try to keep patching the holes which LEAs and other agencies keep kicking in the walls of freedom.
I have personally been searched on 3 occasions because a drug dog barked at my van after I refused a search. I have never done drugs in my life. I have no criminal record. On one occasion I was brazenly full-body searched on a busy road near my home because I had a LEGALLY REGISTERED firearm in my vehicle. Is it right? Nope. Can I do a damned thing about it? Nope.
Little known facts: In the grand ol' US of A there is something called Family Court. Burden of proof: on the defendant. Appeals: NO SUCH THING. Double Jeopardy: NO SUCH THING. Right to a fiar trial: NO SUCH THING. Right to an attorney: NO SUCH THING. Conflict of interest: NO SUCH THING. Even more shocking: I was told by a judge on court record that I "would have a change of heart" because of my belief in corporal punishment or would be thrown in jail for contempt. Why is it like this? An LEA called DFCS, or DSS, or whatever your state calls it.
So go save the russians while your sister is being raped by your county cleark 'cause the neighbor thought she saw her smoke a joint.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Exactly. I think we finally have a case where two wrongs just might make a right.
I do not have a signature
So russians and chineese will detain persons from
US and give them trial by russan/chineese law, because they
have forged log files. Those will look for any
excuse to do whatever they want granted they
are interested in final outcome. FBI has ventured
into international relationships here, CIA must be
feel snubbed. FBI has no place in counterintelligence,
just like CIA has no place in local matters.
Just because of expertise and ability to deal with
delicate issues of international relations.
Just see McVeigh's trial, where he was determined
guilty from the beginning by FBI, so only evidence
that supported his guilt has been handed over to
trial.
Besides cunning tactics like that are publicised,
and therefor available for immediate review by
other side. Now it will be hard to reel
'criminals' in similar way, because there will
be cross checks and double checks. Besides,
they are only reeling in script kiddies,
good ones work as security consultants remotely
anyway.
So we will applaud to FBI for its creativity,
however many will frown upon FBI for that,
because there's oodles of local script kiddies,
who need to be caught.
This will be interesting to see in which direction
it will go. Maybe computer related crimes
worldwide will be handled by FBI as compared to
CIA, because of international treaty thats
being cooked up by countries all over the world.
So if you telnet to machine somewhere in tadjikistan,
they will be able to haul your ass in jail if
their law says that you have commited a crime.
And so on...
What to do about it? Can't say.
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.
When these hackers put on their little performance for the FBI, they were in Seattle, which is well inside American territory. American laws did apply at that time, and it was then that they found themselves arrested and their data copied. Up until then, they were offered false jobs by a fictitious company in the hopes of catching them in criminal activity, but that's far from prosecution. The ethics of "sting"-type operations aside, you won't get caught in a sting if you're truly innocent. Further, I submit that you may be overlooking the apparently vast arrogance and stupidity of the hackers themselves. They deserved to get caught, and I don't think the hacker community is any worse off for their loss. I know that both Russian and American society are better off.
sillyputtyThis is awesome news!! This is great! This means that if I ever get caught having files on my comp that I got while hacking into someone else's computer... they can't arrest me for the act, but only arrest me if I *look* at the information! We now have a case history to use in court if anyone gets in trouble. Think about that for a minute.
Altho...I think the world should invade the U.S., to protect themselves. Seems things are slowly getting more and more out of hand. Maybe they don't do it because we're living thru a period of appeasement.
I'm just babbling now. EOF.
- Dev
AFAIK IANAL: They will have to arrest you in order to sieze equipment, because they can only sieze the equipment if they expect you to destroy it. Therefore if it's bogus you can sue for either illegal search and siezure, or unlawful arrest (for arresting you for no good reason).
Well, why not? I think that Afghanistani law would probably protect various terrorists that we badly want to see tried from any sort of legal apprehension. Should we just let it go? I mean, come on, that's a little absurd... the US has countries that are essentially its enemies, and the FBI should hobble itself because they are not interested in helping defending American property?
As far as the US justice system is concerned, events that occur outside it are essentially a black box, and rightly so. Nations exist in a realm of anarchy, governed only by agreements that are binding only as long as they feel like abiding by them. It may be that the FBI should be prevented from playing internationally, but that makes these incidents what? A military matter? I think that's an even worse idea.
No relation to Happy Monkey
Taken from the ZD-Net article:
The judge noted that investigators then obtained a search warrant before viewing the vast store of data--nearly 250 gigabytes, according to court records. He rejected the argument that the warrant should have been obtained before the data was downloaded, noting that "the agents had good reason to fear that if they did not copy the data, (the) defendant's co-conspirators would destroy the evidence or make it unavailable."
This opens a particularly nasty can of worms. Let's say I have a computer, and for whatever reason a law enforcement agency is told that my computer may have something they want. They could storm into my home and take my personal posessions, and there is nothing I could do about it, since they have not viewed the data yet. I would have no right to ask what they needed the equipment for, or why, or when I would get the hardware back.
I understand the argument (but do not condone it) of "if we don't get it now, it may be gone", but if "good reason" takes precedence over written law, law becomes powerless.
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
These two were bright enough to hack into CD Universe and Western Union but they weren't bright enough to consider that their keystrokes might be recorded? And apparently they weren't bright enough to use different passwords for their different accounts (or did the FBI have them demonstrate their hacking skills by hacking into their own accounts?)
Onorio Catenacci
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
-- Stan Dunn
I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand, I agree that since the FBI owned the computers in the first place, information entered into that computer wouldn't be the "possession" of the hackers, and should be freely used by the FBI.
On the other hand, they clearly used this information to gain access to something that didn't belong to them.
On the third hand, if a hacker manages to steal that much information, and can't be smart enough to avoid entering personal information on a computer they don't own, I don't have much respect for them.
And on the fourth hand, John Delorean.
Beware typoes.
So, if we don't like the way another country rules itself, we go and tell them how WE like it? Sounds like Vietnam, Nicaragua, Zaire, and a ton of other countries.
However, the ruling on the validity of downloading the data looks specious to me, it is *directly* equivalent to using a access code to get messages off of an answering machine without a warrant. Even if you only tape the messages, you need a warrant *first*.
--Dave Rickey
You mean like they did to the Norweigan kid who wrote DeCSS? I guess the answer would have to be yes.
The only certainty is entropy.
On the one hand: But then also: So then what? Perhaps Martian law applies? Certainly there is some set of laws that cover access to this property of a Russian national that existed on Russian soil... Well perhaps not... This is some scary stuff...Remind me never to get on the bad side of the FBI...
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Anyone who's read Cryptonomicon will find this scenario familiar:
The FBI agent has the data copied to his hard drive. Now, he can't view it legally, but he still wants to know what it contains. What does "viewing" constitute?
The easiest approach might be grepping the data for interesting bits. But in this case he actually views parts of the data, so I guess that's out.
How about a more sophisticated program which analyzes the data and prints a summarized version of what the interesting bits contain? Given that the FBI agent probably has some idea what sort of data he's dealing with, such a program shouldn't be too hard to write.
Finally, straight from the book, the agent could write a script which greps and/or analyzes the data, converts the output to morse code, and beeps it out from the PC speaker. No viewing involved at all :)
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
personally, I think it's great that we FINALLY started to break some balls overseas. Everyone, at least on the ZDNet forums, was bitching and whining about entrapment, well, there is NO OTHER WAY to effectively nail these guys. Our (US) laws don't apply to them, same way that their country's laws didn't stop them from DDoS'ing a few our the US's major servers. This whole idea about "can't view, only copy" is total crap, the judge knows damn well the FBI is going to copy it, then view it, then go for the warrant if they have to. In the end, if it gets a few hundred Russian/E. European script kiddies off our backs, more power to the feds.
What is the next thing? Could they come to Europe and take all my stuff and arrest me??
---
Privacy is terrorism.
I'm not particularly fond of a lot of the methods used by the FBI, but you have to admit that this was pretty slick. IANAL but it does seem that all of the bases are covered and the data retrieved was in fact being protected from destruction while awaiting a proper search warrent. Arrogence may not be a crime but in this case it seems that it sure helps you get arrested for them. If you think the FBI is bad wait until you meet up with some of the cowboys from the DEA; just be glad they are on our side.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Just wondering how international law would see this. Yes this guy is in a different country. Sure he is doing illegal stuff, but the FBI should try and work with the Russian government. But hey, who cares about an international incident.
But hey I am Canadian A, so who is going to stop the FBI some day from hacking my pc for say the mp3's I have stored on there.
So if the FBI is hacking into other peoples PC's then who is worse, the crackers, or the FBI. >:)=
My 2 cents plus 2 more
VEGETA
>:)=
Damn, why can the FBI only hack hackers, but when a Russian hacks me, I can't do shit?!
The precendent that this sets would be: you can hack whoever you want, as long as you think they hacked you first. So, anyone with a PC could be hacked by the FBI with this reason, the FBI can say, "they thought". First Carnivore/Echleon, now this!
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
According to the article, "Indeed, the undercover agents told (Gorshkov) that they wanted to watch in order to see what he was capable of doing" and "asked the men to demonstrate their prowess". Sure sounds like they were challenging them to do something difficult on the spot - and playing defense in the security business isn't exactly flashy. There is nothing about asking them to access their home computers in that article. Apparently they did so in the process.
No, I don't think this is considered entrapment. Entrapment generally involves them making you commit a crime, and then charging you with it. Pretending to go along with a crime they are committing (such as prostitution or solicitation of a prostitute, or drug deals) doesn't count, nor does leading them on for the purposes of obtaining information (such as this case).
cryptochrome
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I can't say I feel sorry for these guys - they had it coming.
Besides, if you actually read the article you'll see that the FBI went to a lot of trouble to get those passwords - by setting up a fake business, luring them with job offers, flying them to America from Russian, and then sniffing their passwords while they demonstrated their cracking ability (presumably an illegal act in itself). Needless to say it's not something they would have the resources to do to just anyone.
cryptochrome
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
The FBI is probably the most dangerous government agency in the USA, the number one threat to democracy. Again and again they have disregard the law, from burning children to shooting people in the back. What we are current seeing is an push to extend it boundaries of its power whenever they have the chance. No government agency should have this kind of power.
"Again, I will say, the government doesn't have the resources to monitor everyone in the world"
You are clearly only a short-term thinker.
The only issue of legality was that of the FBI grabbing the data before they had a warrant. The judge decided it's fine. End of story, our legal system is happy with it. Now if the Russians have issues with this arrest they can bring them up with our ambassadors. However they haven't. Personally I think the Russian government is fine with this, otherwise they would have already let us know.
Let's suppose FBI were successful to intercept the password or even the identity of the hacker(s). Then what? If according to the law where they live it's not a crime, then their government will reluctantly cooperate with FBI. If this is the case (which I strongly believe), what FBI will do? To intervene and kidnap them silently? Or lure them out to US? This is not only ethical but can also trigger wrath from other countries for intervening a country's internal issues.
This could be unfavorable for US as many countries view US as the "world cop" and this solution is clearly one-sided. Hence, many will speculate this as a prelude for a more daring effort to "secure" all digital piracy around the globe or at least make other countries tune into the same perspective.
I think the more reasonable way is to make a world consortium about this, sit down and make an agreement or convention or whatever to prevent further damages.
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
Congress revised their instructions, directing USN vessels to "take", ie capture, Tripolitan vessels.
My point? May I suggest that early American officials had a higher sense of honorable behavior than current FBI officials!
You are all paranoid. Again, I will say, the government doesn't have the resources to monitor everyone in the world, so GET OVER IT.
Secondly, the judge was correct. The Russians could not be guarenteed privacy when using a computer that is not theirs. As far as the document, we do not know the title of the document itself. If it read, "my hacked shells.txt" then the FBI could legally copy it and obtain a warrant. It's very similar to seeing a shotgun in someone's car while the cop has him/her pulled over for a traffic stop and then legally being allowed to do a full search of the car.
Thirdly, the FBI did not violate any laws of Russia. And no that doesn't give you the right to illegally access machines of people that supposedly illegally accessed you. No, the FBI is not above the law however in order to protect us, law enforcement agencies do need to be able to bend the law a little bit to get the evidence they need. Sorta like the FBI going into a business and requesting their Tax files from the last 10 years in investigating a tax fraud case.
Finally, if you have nothing to hide then don't worry about law enforcement. If you do have something to hide then put your tail between your legs. Every person on here who complains about the FBI and the gov't is just afraid that their warez'd version of Photoshop will be found.
I think you need to flash your brain's firmware.
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Wouldn't it make us all better off if those guys had just sold programming services instead? They had plenty of expertise in several areas, but they decided to engage in crime. I have no sympathy.
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Do computers have international rights? The Russians were on US soil, abiding by US law, and were taken down in what I consider a nice and legal little scheme (it's not entrapment unless they ask you specifically for the drugs, so to speak). The extortionists are down, and should get no sympathy cards from white hats anywhere.
However, the computer was compromised on Russian soil and THAT is a real issue. Obviously it is some form of search and seisure, as one needs a warrant to utilize the data. While there is no physical invasion of foreign soil any more than there would be if one accessed gov.uk, using stolen passwords is a violation of most legal systems. The complete lack of any sort of information transfer between the US and Russia is horrible, and a clear violation of both Russian law and the sanctity of their borders. Whether or not the Russians were inept at dealing with crime in their borders, they must be gone through or else militant fundamentalists will have the right to violate US borders because of US ineptitude in dealing with "the abortion problem" or "the satanist problem" or the just general corporate worldwide domination and exploitation problem.
Then again, this action seems to fall directly in line with Bush's policy goal of getting into another really big war.
-Cgenman finds it cute that they were only caught when the tried to get real jobs.
The ______ Agenda
Consider a car travelling at 100 mph driving through your front door becaues the driver was hopped up on smack. Now consider that if the police had been able to force him off the road it would not have happened. J00 S4CK.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Does it really sound fair? Or are you just saying that so you can say mildly something relevent in your fp?
Phew! Looks like I'm safe now. I got all this copied software from all my friends and the internet in case I ever wanted to buy the program, and all this time I thought it was illegal.
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.
We think that being in the US is bad because the FBI has jurisdiction here and so has some rights to pry. But, really, being outside the US is worse because the FBI (and NSA -- Echelon) is essentially being given free rein to do whatever they want. To whom is the FBI accountable when they hack other nations' computers? Apparently no one.
-----------------------
-----------------------
Stay in school, kids! Peace out, Dubya
"Finally, if you have nothing to hide then don't worry about law enforcement. If you do have something to hide then put your tail between your legs. Every person on here who complains about the FBI and the gov't is just afraid that their warez'd version of Photoshop will be found."
--- Above post
If you've never had the chance, pick up a copy of either "1984" or "Brave New World". While they both show the extreams. they are a good warning about allowing a govenment to "bend the law". Its not about hiding illegal copies of software, its about protecting our rights to have our own opinions. Its like a domino effect.
1. We allow the FBI/CIA/Police/Whatever law enforcement organization, to search as they see fit, and "bend the law".
2. A law gets past, by the govenment, that prevents people from expressing opinions that are contrary to the government, not easy, it would requre a little more corruption than is currently present.
3. the FBI et al., begin collecting information about such "criminals", a process that you wish to see allowed.
4. These "criminals" are then quitely prosecuted and sent to jail.
5. The govenment now has the means to openly get rid of unwanted political movenments.
Its a slow process, and would require some coordination, in the govenment, to pull off, but then, the Roman empire started off as a great little democracy, and later became the behemoth it was after corruption in the govenment began creating problems.
I'm not afraid of the law enforcement seeing what software I have, I actually buy mine, I am afraid that they will use this as a means to suppress me from expressing my opinion.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Sorry, can't really think about any aspects of this case without focusing on how stupid these hackers were in the first place. I mean, geeze, if you want to become a criminal you've got to act like one all the time. This usually translates into keeping a low profile, a pretty common skill for most traditional criminals. Of course this may be the easiest way to catch computer criminals, appeal to their hubris by offering them a job for a lot of money.
Now why are they reporting about supposedly covert operations on mass media? Made about as much sense as all the Gulf War reporting on CNN. Saddam got more info from them than anyone else!
The only legitimacy I see in this is the fact that the sniffing of passwords took place in US space. (And even this is highly questionable given the virtual nature of the net)
So when will we see the next step, a judgment that OKs the FBI to hack into the Russian computers right away? Will the USA now cease considering Chinse hackers that hack into US government computers an international infringement?
I completely agree that this probably takes out a few Russian script kiddies. However, it takes them out with a method that starts to be questionable against the background of international law. Technically, had they nuked Chelyabinsk, they'd have taken out the script kiddies out as well. Face facts: when a hacker is outside your own territory, your law doesn't apply to them. While this may be a problem in the elimination of hackers, this is only just and fair for international relationships. Hackers are just citizens, you know. Even Russians.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
Whether Russia is considered a lawless place as compared to the US by US citizens or not is of very little concern for international law. If it's on their soil, it's their responsibility. If they don't live up to what you think their responsibility is, the only thing you're allowed to do is to complain. No nuking, no computer intrusions, no covert police actions.
The notion of whether somewhere is a lawless place is a highly subjective notion, don't you think? Compared to Somalia, Russia is a pretty lawful place. The sheer number of laws in effect in Russia is probably comparable to the US. What you describe as it being a lawless place is more precisely a certain chaos in how they are enacted and executed. However, the FBI will have to be asked for aid by the Russians prior to intruding in order for the whole thing to be compliant to international law.
Also, there is the issue of "intrusion". The fact that the FBI obtained the passwords in a fashion that was legal against US law dows not lessen the intrusion. If it was legal in Iran to torture people, could the Iranians torture some Americans, get their passwords to some American servers and happily go downloading away just because they don't have to hack into the machine, after all, because they've got the passwords? The danger of hypocrisy is rather evident.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
Define "bend the law a little bit".
According to law, a law enforcement agency must operate within the law. Everything else is unlawful by definition. If we allow law enforcement agencies to behave unlawfully, then we can go back to torturing prisoners and concentration camps: in the substance, there's no difference. And the FBI is allowed by law to request tax files.
Admittedly, your point is better than your last one. But imagine borrowing a friend's car, then getting crashed into by a drunk truck driver. Should you not be guaranteed personal safety in spite of the car you're driving not being yours? Shouldn't I be guaranteed privacy when walking on a public road that isn't mine? Is the government allowed to confiscate my friend's laptop and see through his files when I walk into a public building that isn't mine? What would the FBI have done if the Russians had used their own computers? Shrugged and said "Well, we can't act here?"
This time, you are really dangerously mistaken. Even if I have nothing to hide, the law enforcement ageny might think I had something to hide and do all sorts of nasty things to me, for example. And just because someone acts in a fashion that you (or the law enforcement agency) consider strange doesn't mean they've got something to hide, and this completely subjective notion should definitely not suffice for them to start hacking into my computer, even if I haven't got a warezed version of Photoshop. What if they hack into it, find my legal copies of Jack B. Nymble and PGP and decide that I'm a potential criminal, hence I'm probably a criminal, hence I am a criminal, hence they can take action against me because they've bent the law a little bit?
In a free, civil society, every individual must be allowed to worry about privacy, about individual security and about law enforcement agencies. Just because I question the police's behaviour doesn't mean I'm a criminal.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
I'm going to venture a guess that the judge who decided this issue had significantly more experience with international law than many /.ers, who seem to think they own honorary degrees in criminal justice.
Also, the idea that the FBI had no business hacking the Russians is unfounded; a crime committed against Americans who are residing on American soil is in the jurisdiction of the FBI, and they are authorized to take action. To say that they had no right to enforce this against Russians whose laws might prohibit the FBI's actions is to say that we should allow international crime on an idealistic basis of national sovereignty. If you believe in this, please stay out of public office.
Agencies like the FBI exist because people and even countries can't take care of themselves or be civil without a government hanging over them like a teacher with a paddle. Take away the paddle and you have bitter little children with nobody to stop them from beating the living hell out of each other.
-phu
---
Who ARE you?!