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."
I'm not an expert on Internation law, but I can't understand how a federal judge can have the sort of authority to declare the action legal when it doesn't appear to be a federal matter. By the same token, a russian judge could just as easily say the two hackers were not breaking the law, though I can't see that holding any bearing on the actions of the US/FBI. If that pans out unfavourably for the russian pov, then it's likely that future 'conflicts of interest' like this will be more difficult.
Slow. The FSB is the domestic arm of the former KGB. Some of them have problems remembering that the KGB is now dead. I attended a seminar given by the FSB and introduced by a general for high-tech companies in Russia. I was impressed, if that is the state of internal presentations, I don't know how anyone got through training.
Bush seems to think that Americans should be immune from other countries' laws. Of course, it's a rather American-centric point of view.
The alternative (the one the Russian FSB [Federal Security Bureau], formerly known as KGB [Committee for State Security]) and certain French censorship judges want is that you are somehow subject to all laws combined - which is a horrible mess. Is this post subject to UK law? (I'm in the UK ATM) Or US? (US server) Or Canadian (accessable from Canada) - in which case it should probably be translated into French as well?
This seems simple to me: when in country X, you are subject to the laws of country X. Everybody else should STFU: I will not accept French, Russian or for that matter Taleban laws as applicable in any way except on their own soil. Hell, if the former KGB considers the FBI's investigation illegal, imagine how illegal the CIA spying on the USSR is - or those spy satellites Boeing and Lockheed make?
What is interesting, is that those hacker had "no expectation of privacy" according to US judge. Does it implies that in US you have no expectation of privacy when using computer at work, public library or internet kiosk?
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
Easier said than done. You're also assuming keyloggers are software. Not many people pop their keyboards open before use to check for the presence of a surreptitiously-installed microcontroller and a serial EEPROM. [I can put a device no bigger than a nickel into a keyboard that watches for "su" and records the next 20 chars (or up to the next cr) and can do that hundreds of times with memory to spare for less than $20 - and I'm a rank amateur. You can bet the FBI's versions of hardware keyloggers are a lot spiffier - and probably smaller - than that.]
If they think you could be one o' them terrorist hackers, they won't even need a warrant to stick one in your machine when you're not looking.
Of course, the point I was making is that the same action can have different legal and moral labels according to situation and perspective. In short, it is not always "a crime is a crime is a crime".
I wasn't really expecting to play the game out... well, OK... the "terrorism" bit is too charged these days to not exect comment. So going further on this is probably OT. But it still is interesting. So here goes.
Well... if you get caught spying on a country, you're breaking their laws certainly. But just being a spy isn't always illegal. We're not running around arresting all the former agents of the CIA, KGB,MI5, Mossad, etc.
We're back to spying. But this is also a domestic issue. The difference in that case is usually a court order.
Actually, I would say you're missing a major point here - act of war. Granted, there are limits even then. The shotgun comes in to play there.
I believe you'll find the Geneva convention covers lots of nasty devices. I mentioned glass bullets because they are particularly nasty. But so are chemical weapons. Shotguns are also prohibited. But you'll note that shotguns and chemical weapons show up prominently in many nations military training.
There are catches to the Geneva convention. First, it only applies when there is an official delaration of war (I believe the last formal delcaration by the US was WWII). And secondly, if one side ignores the Geneva convetion, everybody is free to ignore it. Gets nasty quickly - and its all "legal".
OK. I should probably be ashamed to have included this because its such a touchy subject at this time. However... I couldn't resist.
Terrorism is a very valid tactic used in warfare. It is otherwise known as psycological warfare. Where it falls in to the "illegal" definition, and the one most commonly associated by the public, is when targets are civilians or the act is done by civilians.
And this is where things get especially dicey. A civilian target can also be a valid military target (ie: factories, communcations centers, a civilian structure housing anti-aircraft artillary, etc). And how do you ensure those commiting these acts are, in fact, combatants? Usually the difference between a combatant/soldier and a spy/criminal/non-combatant is a military uniform. Most acts of terrorism in the news over the past few decades have been either against civilian targets or commited by individuals in civilian garb.
Of course... this is just touching on the subject. This particular definition is hard enough to nail down with all the mitigating factors that existed before the current political climate. Further obfuscation of the issue by seizing it for political purposes is short-sighted to say the least. But I'll stop before this becomes a bit long rant.
Anyway - the point is... its not all black and white.
First - let me point out that I find the current political environment around the term "terrorism" extremely distateful. And furthermore, I am not here to defend US action or claim that the US is always on moral highground. Having said that...
You've made an interesting point about Al Quaeda. Do they have a set military uniform? Do they commit these acts while wearing this uniform? And even then - is a country affiliation also required by international law? I would have to agree that, all other issues accounted for (and that covers a LOT of additional ground), Al Quaeda has targeted some valid military targets.
As for US killing... that would have to go on a case-by-case basis. The Iranian airline would have to be, at best, a tragic mistake.
I'm not sure about your reference to the Chinese.
I would assume the Iraqi and Afghan references are from the "Gulf War" and the recent conflict in Afghanistan. Afghan deaths have been attributed to military targets by the US military - denial of this is either propoganda or evidence of US military screwups. I suspect the same can be said for deaths of civilians during hostilities with Iraq (coupled with some very questionable propoganda out of Iraq - the 'baby milk factory' video being a prime example).
So if You've got no expectation of privacy when using the internet, then those people who used their credit cards can have no expectation of privacy either, so the russians can't have been doing anything illegal by taking the public(according to the judge)credit card details.
Thats because your most likely to young to recall all the shenanagins the Russians used to pull in the past when their spies were caught over here. The always pull stunts like this. The US will not be handing any of it's FBI agents over to the Russians.
As per tournabout business and entrapment, non-US citizens here on vacation DO NOT enjoy the same rights as Americans do. Nothing in the constitution says we have to extend those rights to everyone in the world.It specifically specifies US citizens.
The whole point behind the Carnivore system is that the data is captured but not examined until you have a search warrant.
Schroeder's cat: If I have a copy of data I can't access, at what point is the data actually "seized"? When it is a copy of bits, or when it is examined and found to be data?
Never confuse volume with power.
Wrong number of arguments or invalid property assignment: 'instr'
No article.. ;(
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
The same reason why we all don't work for One Big Company. Diversity is good. It may allow for conflicts to exist, but such events are required in nature for us to learn and grow.