Russian Snared By The FBI Sentenced To 3 Years

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."

Comments

Write your Congressman

[igotmybfg]

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

[GigsVT]

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

[darthdrinker]

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

[Rick the Red]

Contribute to whoever's running against them. Even $20 will be appreciated.

Put one of their signs on your lawn to let your neighbors know you oppose the dork in office. If they ask you about it, explain your reasons -- you might open their eyes and get more votes for your candidate.

Write a letter to the editor of your local paper, complaining that your congressperson is ignoring your views on vital issues and urging votes for their opponent. Be well-reasoned and no name calling! ("Congressman Doe opposes controls on baseballs because he thinks they would infringe on people's rights, but I disagree: Whiffle balls are much safer and just as enjoyable. Baseballs belong in the ballpark, not on the street. Nobody has the right to break their neighbor's windows." -vs- "I support baseball control but dorky Congressman Doe doesn't!")

Re:Write your Congressman

[mpe]

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.

Re:Write your Congressman

[FreeUser]

I think he is referencing our unstinting support of Israel despite their many atrocities, though he could be talking about our support of any number of other countries as well (at least on many of those point). Assuming I'm right, and he is pointing out the double standard of our treatment of Iraq v. our treatment of Israel...

... [a country that] ignores UN resolutions,

Indeed. Kyoto, Haag, plenty more...

Numerous resolutions regarding the boundries of Israel and calling for a Palastinian state on the west bank and gaza strip, and for the return of the Golan heights to Syria.

has weapons of mass destruction,

A, B and C. And lots of them.

A and C for certain, probably B as well.

has invaded some of its neighbours,

I wasn't aware of his? Mexico?

This is why I'm pretty certain he is referring to Israel. Although as small as the world has become, invading Panama and various Carrabean islands might certainly qualify as 'neighbors.'

In any event the shoe fits both countries pretty well, in the case of Israel: Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan have all been invaded and had territory occupied. The United States is actually quite well behaved in comparison, were it not for the monetary and military support we keep giving varrious jerks around the world, including Israel.

treats ethnic groups in their territories badly

Yes, the poor American Indians.

Native Americans, hispanics, blacks, Americans of Chinese and Japanese Descent. All of which is largely historical at this point in terms of official behavior, but remains an issue with respect to the behavior of thug cops in any number of American cities. Now of course we get to add Arab and Islamic Americans to the list, a condition which most certainly isn't historical, but will almost certainly be yet another glaring black mark on our ever-more-sordid history.

Israel: Muslims, Palestinians, reformist and black Jews, to name just three.

and is lead by a nasty man.

Sure, Bush-2 is extremely nasty. One of the nastiest so far. But hey, about the "invaded" point... We are talking about the US, yes?

I don't think so, though the shoe fits disturbingly well. I think Sharon is the player here, and yes, I think he is significantly nastier than Baby Bush, much as I despise and loathe the latter.

Conclusion: Bush-2 is the most dangerous man in the world today. We must nuke him at the first opportunity.

Conclusion: Israel and Sharon are the most dangerous people in the world. We must nuke them at the first opportunity.

NOT

If this doesn't show how asinine preemptive strikes, and 'threat of future developments as a justification to start a war and invade a country' type of arguments, consider this:

Is the United States really going to be able to bomb every country into submission who doesn't see eye to eye with our policies and has the capability of developing weapons of mass destruction over the next ten, fifteen, twenty, fifty years?

The technologies have become so ubiquitious that a Boy Scout has already succeeded in building a breeder reactor in his garage and turning his entire neighborhood into a superfund site, while another group of college students were able to create fissionable material in their dorm room. And that is just here in the United States. How many countries are going to have the wherewithall to build atomic, biological, or chemical weapons in the next ten years? How about the next fifty? Does the United States government really think a policy of beating small countries into submission for having the audacity of building the same weapons we stockpile in abundance is at all sustainable even over the near term future?

I certainly don't think so, and I think anyone with their head not firmly in the sand can recognize just how auful, how mislead, how ultimately self-destructive even considering such a posture is to the United States.

The sooner we get Baby Bush and his ultra-hawkish, quite-possibly-fascist advisors out of office the better.

I once said that regardless of the outcome of the last electorial debacle, we'd survive four years of whoever was in office just fine and elect someone else in four years. Now I am not at all certain our economy, our telecommunications and internet infrastructure (c.f. Baby Powell's gross mismanagement of the FCC), the moral or ethical ideals of our country, or even the country itself, is going to survive even three years of the idiots currently running it into the ground.

However, I think Israel is even less likely to survive the excesses of the monsters they, themselves have elected, nor is the middle east likely to survive the excesses many of them have turned to for leadership.

Europe, Canada, or maybe even Australia are looking better all the time.

No wonder everyone hates the USA

[gaff1]

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.

Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA

[GreyWolf3000]

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

[LinuxInDallas]

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.

Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA

[gaff1]

I know. For me, the sad part is that they will mod me down because they are afraid of looking in the mirror. We have an image of ourselves that is the complete opposite of what our elected officials are about to do. We believe that we are a just, peaceful, and fair country that everyone loves. And I do believe that each of us holds the idea that our government is "Of the people, for the people, and by the people". So I think the real problem for us right now is accepting the responsibility of what our government (and therefore each of us) is about to do. Invade another country, against the will of the international community, against established international law, and with little or no evidence.

I really fear that we, in the eyes of the international community, will loose all moral credibility.

Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA

[MoneyT]

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.

Give me a break

[GigsVT]

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

[Blkdeath]

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}

Re:Give me a break

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Re:Give me a break

[dkh]

Exactly.

Its sad to see the kinds of posts that are being made.

America bad. America only super power left so they should let others walk all over them. Goverment evil. Hacker cool. Bush evil.

Please.

Being anti-government was the in thing back in the 60's kiddies, decide which generation you are part of. Also, I think its time some folks spent a few months reading some world history with an eye to comparing the "evil" US to what has happened in the past in other countries and regions . When you have a firm grip on that then rethink all this tripe.

Slashdot is getting to be more like kuro5hin every day.

The government should always be watched closely by the people. Hence elections, and failing that... the second amendment. The constitution and the bill of rights are suprisingly robust documents.

These jerks were greedy and beyond that stupid.

Re:Give me a break

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Being anti-government was the in thing back in the 60's kiddies, decide which generation you are part of. Also, I think its time some folks spent a few months reading some world history with an eye to comparing the "evil" US to what has happened in the past in other countries and regions . When you have a firm grip on that then rethink all this tripe.

I served my country (yes, that's the US) in uniform for eight years, including Desert Storm; if you think I'm mindlessly anti-government, you're a moron. And I've spent a lot more than "a few months" reading history; I know quite well how the US's record compares to that of other countries. And finally, I choose my political beliefs based on my own knowledge of the world, not generational labels.

Just because the US has historically been the "good guy" in most cases -- and we have -- does not mean that everything we do is automatically good. In this case, and in the Sklyarov case, we fucked up. It's that simple. And in fact, those of us Americans who are bitching about it are doing our patriotic duty by pointing out when, where, and how our government fucked up. That's a big part of what being an American means.

The government should always be watched closely by the people. Hence elections, and failing that... the second amendment. The constitution and the bill of rights are suprisingly robust documents.

Very true. That's what the rest of us are doing, watching our government closely. Why aren't you?

New slogan to appear on US currency

[dubiousmike]

do as we say, not as we do

Slight difference.

[mesozoic]

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.

A little less bias, please.

[GreyWolf3000]

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.

Re:A little less bias, please.

[monadicIO]

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.

reality check

[Raiford]

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.

or...

[bashibazouk]

Make bucket loads of cash (not easy but on par with getting elected to congress) and contribute to candidates of both parties making sure they know and intend to push your agenda.

The Judge found it OK because...

[the_skywise]

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.

[raretek]

"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.

A way to improve your odds...

[bashibazouk]

You know what I've heard works really well. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper about the issue. Clip the whole letters page (so you have both the identity of the paper and the date of issue) and highlite your letter then send it and a professional letter version to your congressman. They supposably take it more seriously if they know a lot of people have read the letter.

eyes shut

[Anonymous Coward]

close your eyes,
think cesar and the roman empire,
open your eyes
and watch america.

about this "double-standard"

[mooredav]

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."

Re:Hmmm... I wonder if they had a warrant...

[Captain_Stupendous]

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?

Only super-power != ruler of the whole world

[Gerry Gleason]

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.

Re:Only super-power != ruler of the whole world

[Gerry Gleason]

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.

Re:Hypocritical? Americans? NO WAY!!

[(v)Jargon(v)]

The U.N. decree also says that a country has the right to build weapons to protect herself. Damn Anonymous Coward! I Pity the Fool!

FBI people better not travel to Russia...

[Dr. Spork]

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!

No sympathy for this guy, but Sovereignty Issues

[dh003i]

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.

and the real criminals are going free

[g4dget]

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.

Re:and the real criminals are going free

[Anonymous Coward]

So your saying that if someone gets robbed its thier fault becuase they didn't secure thier wallet well enough? And we shouldn't do anything to the guy that robbed him and stole his money, because its his own damn fault that his money wasn't in a vault at the time? Thats sounds kinda rediculous to me...

Re:Hypocritical? Americans? NO WAY!!

[DEBEDb]

So it's ok to invade US, because we have
weapons of mass destruction too, right?

It makes sense

[dhogaza]

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...

[teetam]

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!

Re:Maybe...

[mindstrm]

Not fair? Please.

They lured them to the US for a job interview, so they could get their passwords, then SENT THEM BACK TO RUSSIA.

Then they gathered evidence using the passwords they got.

THEN they had them extradited, officially.

I don't see what's not fair abou that. (and hey, I'm normally the first to criticize the US).

It was just smart.

Re:Good job!

[DetrimentalFiend]

But police have MANY rules they must follow when using firearms. The same goes for hacking. The difference is that the US didn't follow those established rules. This is made even more absurd when the US then uses illegally gathered evidence to prosecute someone for an almost identical crime. Not to mention that the US judge basically said that US law is above Russian law. I find the whole situation quite scary.

I find it disturbing...

[forkboy]

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.

Yes, but the USA would never...

[Rui del-Negro]

..actually use them on... er... human bei... hm... nevermind.

RMN
~~~

That's all fine and dandy.

[mindstrm]

But I have to point out.

When they broke into American computers and stole American data form them, they were committing illegal acts IN THE UNITED STATES. The fact that they were physically in Russia is moot. Let's pretend they were in a country where this activity was legal. Their home country would never extradite.. but the US could STILL charge them under it's own legal system, and deal with them should they set foot on US soil.
This is not simply a case of someone doing something in a foreign land that would have been illegal if it was happening in the US, it WAS happening in the US.

You are responsible for your actions. If I go to one country, do something illegal, and leave, and this is not a crime in my own country, my own country should not extradite me. However, should I ever end up in that foreign country again, why should I deserve protection?

Re:No sympathy for this guy, but Sovereignty Issue

[dh003i]

Why should he be arrested? He was in Russia, thus subject to RUSSIA's laws, NOT OURS.

If he, however, offers to offer such espionage services, his citizenship in the US should be cancelled, and he should be deported/exiled upon returning, and banned from ever coming to the US.

Try to get this through your head. When a citizen is in nation X, (s)he is obligated to obey the laws of nation X and ONLY nation X, not any other nation, including his/her homeland.

Simply because something does or doesn't "seem" right/wrong to you is NO REASON to violate sovereignty. Sovereignty is a very simple concept. The US government is sovereign over the US. The Russian government is sovereign over Russia. Individual's in Russia are obligated to obey the laws of Rusia ONLY, and not those of the US. Individual's in the US are obligated to obey the laws of the US ONLY and not those of Russia.

Your insistance that a US citizen vistiting Russia obey both Russian laws and US laws is as unreasonable as it is short-sighted and ignorant of sovereignty issues.

Re:Israel??!!

[ProtonMotiveForce]

Sharon is approximately 1/3 of the problem in the region. He's a hardline psychopath and he's only creating hatred in a large group of people who will continue to murder and commit suicide bombings because of their hatred.

He's also a fucking idiot. He's in the middle of a group of people who will soon outnumber Israeli's 2:1 or more, and he's sticking to his policy of absolute domination and force. He apparently hasn't studied much history.

It's easy to be a hardliner and blame all the death on your enemies, it's harder to watch the bodies pile up because your leader refuses to compromise over anything.

He's commited a few atrocities of his own over there - his hands aren't exactly clean.

Re:Israel??!!

[kfg]

"If you wanted to condemn a country for ignoring UN resolutions, having weapons of mass destruction, expanding its territory through violence and bloodshed, and treating ethnic groups badly, not to mention being lead by a nasty man, you could have picked the US itself."

You understand, don't you, that this sentence of yours only *strengthens* the parent post's argument?

KFG