Slashdot Mirror
Russian Agency Charges FBI Agent With Hacking
eNonymous Coward writes "An FBI agent who helped lure two Russian 'hackers' to the USA in 2000 so that they could be arrested is now being charged with hacking himself by the Russian FSB. You might remember that Gorshkov and Ivanov exploited an NT vulnerability to steal information from corporate networks, which was then used to extort money from the companies; they're also accused of being behind the CDUniverse and Western Union credit card database thefts. Last year a federal judge ruled that the FBI's action was legal, but the FSB disagrees."
A crime, is a crime, is a crime, and should be solved officially. Stealing data is just a normal crime, also if it is done by FBI.
I believe the Russians have a very strong case here - the FBI invited them over to the USA and then asked them to hack a system, then bang them up for hacking. This is hardly fair - and the Russians are absolutely right: if the FBI were using keystroke-tracking software, they're the ones who were committing the offence.
It surprises me, though, that you have two very good hackers, and neither of them thought to err on the side of caution and check the computers they were working on for such things...
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
"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."
This is what it all really comes to. Does US have the right to make it's agents untouchable to other countries laws? What if this had happened the other way around? (US criminals, Russia agents arrest them and hack to their computers.)
What I notice is the US Govt's case is based on: 1> the fourth amendment doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen here, and 2> Russian law doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen there.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
You know what might be interesting? Both the Russian and American laws may be right.
Think about it: the "sting" was under US jurisdiction as far as the physical location of the agents and the operation, so peeking at the records might be allowed. However, the hoovered computer was in Russia, so Russian laws apply to those efforts as well.
The what might help is to visualise what the non-computer version would be. Say the data in the US is a perfect fax of the Russian originals: did the agents "break and enter" into a data warehouse with forged keys, or did they trick the warehouse into voluntarily sending the copies? If the method in which these copies were obtained is illegal in Russia, are they still admissible in the US as evidence?
It's way too complicated, and I have no idea how I should feel about it.
Did you notice that the US courts accept the fact that data is just as much property as your car is (for the MPAA's sake), and the fact that it is clearly not (if it has been gathered as evidence)?
Did you also notice the fact Russian law does not apply the federal agents hacking Russian computers, but clearly US law applies to Russians hacking American computers?
This is disgusting...
-- Please put this in your sig if you think
What I notice is the US Govt's case is based on: 1> the fourth amendment doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen here, and 2> Russian law doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen there.
The FBI is using the courts' confusion over the internet to muddy the waters about where the crime took place and who should have jurisdiction. This twists the situation around so that Dmitriy is a US criminal for doing something in his own country that's entirely legal in his own country, and the FBI can do anything illegal in the US and not have to answer to US law.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
It's up to Russian courts to enforce Russian law. It's up to US Courts to enforce US Law.
It's better this way, really. Would you want Russian courts enforcing the US DMCA against Skylarov?
The difference is that normally if FBI wants to do any operation in other country, it had to cooperate with that country officials. If they just come to another country, and do a search without obtaining search permit from that country's officials, that would be a crime.
As you rightfully mentioned, just becuase it involves computers and not drug traffiking/dealing does not make it much different - FBI performing illigal search in other country [Russia] and hacking computers in Russia without obtaining permit from Russian court was commiting a crime. Pretty straightforwrd, is not it?
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
How come that the FBI can have a US search warrant to look at russian data.
And then the judge tells us russian law does not apply? And the American Constitution does not apply?
What's going on. If I live in a foreign (non US) country, I wont have any rights. Not the rights of my country and not the rights of the US.
Do I still have my basic human rights?
Disclaimer: This opinion was created without the use of any facts
two words: "Patriot" "Act"
Excuse me? Is there *any* legal basis for that? You only need apply for a search warrant after you've confiscated all the material you need if you think the bad guys might try to cover their tracks?
Incidentally, if the FBI agents knew all along that they wanted to access this data, why didn't they apply for the search warrant before starting the whole sting operation?
Let's hope that other nations will help reign in the US law enforcement and legal system, for the benefit of everybody in the world.
Oh, it sounds good to set up these little questions, but actually every single one is answered by well-defined law. Of course, in each case, it's only the former ("OK") category when the action complies with the existing law within the jurisdiction of the agent committing the act. Usually, in international affairs, there is no defining jurisdiction -- and therefore, the action is not "OK".
That's why the Bush administration's go-our-own-way, knee-jerk unilateralism is a Bad Thing. The United States has spent 50 years helping craft an international environment that handled many of the cases offered above -- and, overwhelmingly, handled them in a way favorable to both the narrow interests of the United States and, amazingly, to the cause of human dignity and freedom.
Now that we're the world's sole military superpower, and darn near the world's sole economic superpower, Bush & Co. think we can ride roughshod over the international agreements that form that framework. (And we're not talking Kyoto or ICC -- they've played pretty fast-and-loose with the Geneva Convention, too.) With no defining jurisdiction agreed between sovereign nations, each feels justified to do whatever it wants. Ironically, with no defining jurisdiction agreed between sovereign nations, none actually are justified.
When you undermine the idea of international law, you make everyone into vigilantes. As a die-hard American patriot, it pains me to see my country turning into a "rogue state".
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
looking at:
He also found that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the computers, "because they are the property of a non-resident and located outside the United States," or to the data -- at least until it was transmitted to the United States.
and
Finally, Coughenour rejected defense arguments that the FBI's actions "were unreasonable and illegal because they failed to comply with Russian law," saying that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions.
That sounds scarily close to saying "US Law doesn't apply to our actions" and "Russian Law doesn't apply to our actions" so we'll do whatever we damned like...
a grrl & her server
Go look up the fourth amendment. It doesn't say 'residents'. In fact, neither 'resident' nor 'citizen' occurs in the bill of rights - referred to instead are 'people'. This entire notion that the bill of rights doesn't apply to foreigners is sheer fabrication - but one we've seen a lot of recently and one I sadly predict we'll be seeing a lot more of before things get better...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
... does this mean that if i put up a public computer somwhere. i could legaly sniff passwords and data because people using it could not expect privacy using my public computer?
ie. have we no expectation of privacy when using a computer on a network/ sending information over a computer network? knowing that a sysadmin could sniff the information? weak argument at best.
something is rotten in the state of denma.. no.. usa
This is a clearcut case of police entrapment. They posed as clients, and enticed the two hackers into commiting a crime, and then busted them. This is like prostitution stings where the undercover cop solicits prospective johns, instead of waiting for them to proposition her, and even denies being a cop if asked point blank. Entrapment is illegal and wrong. The ends do not justify the means.
How ya like dat?
And I'm sure the Russians feel the same way about non-Russian FBI agents who break into Russian PCs without a warrent. When it's "they are not US citizens, so we can treat them how we like" - that's OK. But in this case it's "the FBI agent is not a Russian so we can treat him how we like" and suddenly, that's not right.
The fifth amendment mentions "person" not "citizen" and includes the phrase "due process of law".
Back to the story in question - this sounds like the Feds overstepped the mark in gathering evidence. We have rules of evidence for a reason, and if they arn't followed, saying the accused is a foreigner so it doesn't matter hardly sounds like, shall we say, the American Way - it would be condemned if it happened to a US citizen abroad.