Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge OKs FBI Hack Of Russian Computers

Posted by timothy on from the fine-lines-and-grey-areas dept.

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."

7 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Nice logic by ryanr · · Score: 5

    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.

  2. About time. by cyberdemo · · Score: 5

    Very smart move. If possible, I would like to congratulate the judge for his wise decision in person.

    You see, America's traditional values are being completely laughed at by the commies. In the past, there was fun, pro-market hacking. That happy situation changed when access to the U.S. Online Network was opened to development countries. Teenage commies and their relatives now have the opportunity to put in risk our way of life, the safety of our children, and everything else we fought for over hundreds of years, by displaying offensive and satanic material over the Internet. It is something that abhores me and my family.

    These soviet hackers are a direct threat to the safety of your family. Don't let them takeover America. Support foreign prosecution of hackers.

    --

    --
    I have no sig at all.
  3. What you see when you login: by AMuse · · Score: 5

    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.
    --------------------------------------------- -----

  4. scary precedent-setting decision... by extrarice · · Score: 5

    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."
  5. Is it? by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 5
    ... if we cant even follow our own rules when dealing with other countries citizens ...
    Didn't we? The FBI got a warrant to look at the files they captured. They got around the lack of an extradition treaty with Russia by enticing the crooks to come here, and got the crooks to reveal the codes needed to access the incriminating evidence with a bit of "human engineering". Make no mistake, they are crooks; the captured files revealed that they were the people responsible for several blackmail operations.
    if that country is blatently ignoring their own laws dealing with me, then screw em.
    I think you have this backwards. Russia is a lawless place in many ways right now. If there was law in Russia, those crooks would have been investigated locally, the evidence revealed without need for any subterfuge, and either have been handed over to US authorities or have been prosecuted and jailed on Russian soil. The FBI is just making it tougher for crooks to get away with "internet protection rackets" by hiding on foreign soil. By raising the stakes, they make it less likely that people will try to do this.

    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
  6. International Law by absurd_spork · · Score: 5
    I think you have this backwards. Russia is a lawless place in many ways right now. If there was law in Russia, those crooks would have been investigated locally, the evidence revealed without need for any subterfuge, and either have been handed over to US authorities or have been prosecuted and jailed on Russian soil. The FBI is just making it tougher for crooks to get away with "internet protection rackets" by hiding on foreign soil. By raising the stakes, they make it less likely that people will try to do this.

    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.

  7. Bending things a little bit? by absurd_spork · · Score: 5
    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.

    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.

    Secondly, the judge was correct. The Russians could not be guarenteed privacy when using a computer that is not theirs

    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?"

    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.

    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.