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

[Xzzy]

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

So what if his opponent is a scumbag of equal quality, but in different areas?

Gotta love this system us americans have created for ourselves, when election time means little more than deciding the lesser of the two evils. ;)

Would be nice if elected officials were required to poll/run votes in their home region and only support what his people tell him to support.

Re:Write your Congressman

[Skuld-Chan]

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.

Sounds like America actually. Anyone ever read about the UN resolutions to comdemn the US for their actions against cuba? They really do exist... Or the US vetoing a UN resolution to investigate why the US fired cruise missles into Sudan?

Re:Write your Congressman

[Jhan]

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

Indeed. Kyoto, Haag, plenty more...

has weapons of mass destruction,

A, B and C. And lots of them.

has invaded some of its neighbours,

I wasn't aware of his? Mexico?

treats ethnic groups in their territories badly

Yes, the poor American Indians.

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?

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

Re:Write your Congressman

[reallocate]

For starters:

Get lots of people to write letters.

Get lots of people to write letters saying this one issue is so important to them that it will determine who they vote for next election.

Get lots of people to promise financial support if the representative supports your position.

Organize a political action committee around this issue. Find funding. Staff an office in Washington and lobby, lobby, lobby.

Hire lawyers. Tell the lawyers to prepare a draft bill reflecting your position. Convince your Congressperson to introduce it.

Start a PR campaign. Find people who have been adversely affected by the status quo re: this issue. Generate press releases about them, tied to the need for action on Capitol Hill. Coach the people to be effective on TV. Get them on TV.

At election time, make sure your people get out and vote the way they said they would.

Be prepared to stick with it for years.

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.

Re:Write your Congressman

[Malcontent]

Why not deal with the facts. Here are some that you can try and justify if you'd like.

1) Israel kills more pleastenians then the other way around every year. The ratio was somewhere around 5 to 1 last I checked. For every Israeli killed by a suicide bomber five palestenians die by US weapons.

2) Israel is focibly occupying the palestenians. It's the only country in the world right now which is militarily occupying a people. In fact in all aspects what israel is doing is no different the apartheid as practiced by the south african govt a while back.

3) Israel has an official policy of torturing people. It does so regularly.

4) Israel routinely arrests people without charges, without access to lawyers and without any due process whatsoever and holds them as long as it wants to.

5) israel is currently holding 800,000 people under curfew. Some have been under curfew for over three months. There is massive malnutrition and starvation as a result not to mention abject poverty and rampant disease.

6) Sharon does not want peace.

7) Under Baraks proposal 85 percent of the settlements and all of east jerusalem would remain under israeli control and the palestenians would still not have the right move freely also they would still not have the equitable access to water. In fact Israel will never ever remove the illegal settlements because they believe that God promised them that land (presumably god also told them to kill people to get it too).

I know the facts are harsh in this situation but any reasonable person has to look at them and conclude that in no way shape or form is Israel acting morally.

If Israel's position is that the lands were taken as a result of war (we won it fair and square) then it is obligated to give citizenship to people it conquered. But this will never happen because zionism demands that Israel be controlled by Jews and if too many arabs have the vote that control would go away.

If Israel's position is that this is a continuing war then it needs to obey the geneva convention and stop torturing prisoners of war and treat civilians humanely.

Otherwise what israel is doing is a combination of Apartheid and ethnic cleansing. It is both occupying and denying citizenship to arabs under it's terroterial control at the same time killing them by thousands per year and expelling them whenever it wants to.

BTW. None of this is jew bashing but all of it is Israel bashing. If they are the same thing and you plan on accusing me of anti-simitism please start your post by saying "Since zionism is the same thing as racism any criticism of israel is by default criticism of the jewish people". You may also throw a phrase or two in there about how even though both the jews and the palestenians are semititic people anti semitism only applies to jews.

Re:Write your Congressman

[Malcontent]

"Are you seriously saying that reprinting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not anti-Jewish?"

I have no idea what those are. Why would it be anti jewish.

"Then how about five and six years old calling Jews dirty pigs and apes that must be destroyed on state TV?"

Maybe he said that because some israeli killed someone he knew, or destroyed his house, or kep him and his family under curfew. DO you think that seeing the death and destruction caused by the state of israel is healthy for a young person. Imagine what kind of mental problems would be caused by seeing that much death and destruction?

"Or what about firing people solely for being Israeli, even though they are long-standing Palestinian rights advocates (Mona Baker anyone?"

Didn't the Israeli Supreme court recently decide that the relatives of arabs who commit crimes can be expelled?

"Or how about dedicating untold amounts of editorial space to rants about fictitious massacres without publishing a retraction"

Personally since the israeli army kept the investigative team out I don't think we will ever know what realy happened. It's not like they don't have the resources to clean up after themselves. Besides which all of this is rather tame compared the columns written in the US papers by Mona Charon , Ann Coulter etc. Have you read them? I think Ann called for rounding up "swarthy men".

"And what about people who whine about fake atrocities yet couldn't care less about little children being blown to bits in pizzerias"

The israelis also couln't care less about little children blown to bits. Just today I read a quote in the local paper from a bulldozer operator who said that he had cleared a stadium sized area in jenin and he was sorry that he did not get a chance to level the entire town.

" I'm trying really really hard to continue believing that European anti-Israeli sentiments aren't indicative of a resurgence of age-old virulent anti-semitism, but it's getting more and more difficult every day."

It's not. It's a rational response to brutal and bloodthirsty govt in Israel. COnsider this. Ariel Sharon can actually lose the next election to Netanyahu who is even more racist and bloodthirsty. As John Stewart (jewish comedian) once said. You know you are in trouble when Ariel Sharon is your soft compromising center (or something to that effect). Blaming the critism on anti semitism is a cop out because you don't want to face the evil shadow that the israeli govt has fallen into.

All in the name of god. How ironic.

Re:Write your Congressman

[MobyTurbo]

At the same time giving lots of money to another country in the same region which ignores more UN resolutions,

Three guesses as to which country is the only country not allowed to sit on the UN Security Council. Also recall that one of the UN resolutions that it ignores is the one that unequivacally equates Zionism with racisim. Then contemplate why they tend to ignore the UN.

has more weapons of mass destruction,

Their weapons of mass destruction are being used responsibly (i.e. never used, only a deterent to hostile neighbors) Do we have the same guarantee for Iraq, who already has launched missles at neighbors not at war with it?

has invaded all of its neighbours,

When your neighbors attack you in wars of anihilation three times, it's natural to go a bit into their territory in order to fight them back, and like in any defensive war of this sort boundries get changed; this is a principle of international law. Germany's and Italy's boundries changed after WWII, so can other agressors; it is a principle of war from time immemorial. Besides, Israel is willing to give almost all of it back, but the PLO decided they wanted two Palestinian states rather than one so they broke off negotiations in favor of terrorism.

treats ethnic groups in their territories badly

Which Middle Eastern country has the right to vote in *fair* elections (Egypt's don't count, they killed more opposition demonstrators in a few days during their phoney elections than Israel did in the first six months of armed riots.) for Arabs? Three guesses. (Yes, it's presently only some of its Arabs; but those get to vote for Arafat and the previously unknown Elementary school teacher who was his token opposition candidate of what the world calls a fair Palestinian election.)

and is lead by a nasty man.

If the PLO doesn't like Sharon, they have only themselves to blame. They decided they prefer war to peace during Camp David, so Israel elected in turn someone who didn't want peace at any price. As little as I like Sharon I admit that the peace process became a disaster for Israel so maybe for now he's the right man.

Re:Write your Congressman

[mpe]

Which Middle Eastern country has the right to vote in *fair* elections

There is no such country. The Palestinians do not have a country, so having the fairness of elections verified by third parties dosn't matter.
Israel does not count because of their denying the vote to people in the territories they occupy and by forbidding candidates standing on an anti-zionist platform.
The last democratic country in the Middle East was Iran, until the US and UK decided to install a tyrant.

Re:Write your Congressman

[MobyTurbo]

Israel does not count because of their denying the vote to people in the territories they occupy

I too disagree with that disenfranchisement - but since the people who live there don't want to vote in Israeli elections like Israeli Arabs anyway, they want their own state, a two state solution is what both sides should agree on. At present, the only two state solution the PLO wants is two Palestinian states.

forbidding candidates standing on an anti-zionist platform.

Yes, they forbid parties that are in favor of the destruction of Israel; which you call "opposing zionism". Actually, several of the religious parties are non-zionist and several of the Arab parties are non-zionist by any definition; so this restriction, which is not one that's enough to make a country not a democracy since the US and other countries have laws against advocating the violent overthrow of the government, has no teeth. Though they are working on putting on trial one MK for attending a pro-terrorism conference in Syria. Of course, you probably think that Syria and other terrorist sponsors, including the PLO itself, are in the right. Unfortunately, I don't have the sense of moral equivalency neccesary to consider Israel on the same level as the PLO who throw a man in a wheelchair overboard from a ship because he has a Jewish-sounding name.

Re:Write your Congressman

[Glytch]

Not exactly true. Living in Canada and watching the US is like watching an older sibling slowly becoming a self-destructive burnout. It's a sad, sick feeling, made worse by the thought that US citizens are even worse off in their plutocracy than we are, and there's little we can do to help.

Re:Write your Congressman

[Malcontent]

"Yes, you don't know. You don't know anything, it seems."

What is this mean? DO you mean to say that because I don't know one thing I don't know anything? I must have missed that day in my logic class. Deal with the facts and refrain from ad hominem please.

"And do you know what kind of mental problems would be caused by seeing a terror attack? I really wish you saw one."

Yes I do as a matter of fact. The fact that you would inflict the same kind of horror on the palestenians as they inflict on you makes you the same in my eyes. You are no better then those terrorists that blow themselves up.

"And what do you think is the reason for all recent house destructions and curfews if not terror attacks?"

There were no suicide bombings for six weeks yet the curfews were not lifted and the troops did not pull out. Apparently the suicide attacks are not the primary justfication for curfews. I could also very easily make the case that the reason for suicide bombings is that Israel has instituted a system of morally bankrupt apartheid.

"Tens of terror attack attempts used to come from Jenin daily before the anti-terror actions. No wonder that bulldozer operator wants to level that town. But he isn't allowed to, instead tens of soldiers die trying to get only the gunmen without the citizens. "

If that is your justification for destroying houses of innocent people and killing of innocent civilians then there is no sense in trying to have an argument with you. You are morally corrupt and are willing to kill any palestenians who happens to live in a city that a terrorist came from. Imagine if the US had the same type of a criminal justice system. Imagine if in response to the columbine attacks the US govt decided to destroy 500 houses in some colorado town and killed a few hundred residents. Thank god that will never happen. Thank god we live in a civilized society that still respects human rights. Israel has sunk into barbarism of the worst sort if it feels morally justified in destroying a city because suicide bombers come from there.

""Bloodthursty"? Twice? And you think your comments are objective? Try to read what you've just wrote, please."

Bloodthirsty is a very accurate adjective. I don't claim that my comments are objective just that my arguments are based on facts. Please deal with the facts that I have provided and disprove them.

"Again wrong. Both Sharon and Netanyahu are not religous (Barak and Peres too, of course). You are slightly confused. It's the arab terrorists who blow themselves in the name of god."

The settlements are there because the israelis believe that god promised them that land. The israelis don't make the palestenians living under their jurisdiction because they have a religious belief that israel should be a jewish state. At the core this conflict is all about religion.

"just a mile away from the territories"

Move away. Get yourself as far from that pit of evil as fast as possible.

Re:Write your Congressman

[Malcontent]

"Actually many of the Jews encouraged to migrate to the Middle East because of Zionism have ancestory from Khazaria thus have more of a claim of the city of Volgograd than Jerusalem. "

I might also mention that a significant percentage of the settlers are from the united states. Somehow an American born and raised in Chicago feels he/she is more entitled to a plot of land in Jerusalem then the family that has lived there for generations because he is a jew and god promised him that land.

Also jewish missionaries have been recruiting in south america (columbia I think). They convert people to Judaism and them ship them to palestine to form new settlements.

What I need is to find a god which promised me some land in Fiji or the bahamas or something so I can go there, kill the residents and take over their land in good conscience.

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

[GreyWolf3000]

I'm not saying the Judges decision isn't right, or not worthy of scrutiny. I'm saying that it's definately not as simple as "our laws apply to them, but theirs don't apply to us cause we are above any other legitimate political force." The judge had more in mind which he doubtlessly explained in his decision, and because of an editorial troll everyone on /. is ranting about how evil America is based on something they haven't read.

Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA

[GreyWolf3000]

Invade another country, against the will of the international community, against established international law, and with little or no evidence.

Where are you getting your news from? Slashdot posts? University activists? There is plenty of evidence--listen to the Senate hearings of former UN weapons inspectors--most of them (two come to mind) have a very good handle on the situation and they can attest to the fact that Iraq is in fact a menace. I'm all for letting one last thourough weapons inspector in (Bush also proposed to "give peace a chance," as the song goes), but the claim that there is little or no evidence is plain wrong.

Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA

[GreyWolf3000]

First, the US and the Russians should be working togehter in theese matters. It has to be a give and take situation. The russians surely don't want to protect theese guys but they sure should have a fair amount of saying in the matter and that does not seem to have been the case. I agree that it would be really sweet to read the judges reasons whatever they might have been.

I definately agree with you here. Russians have crackers, we have crackers, we both outlaw them, hence we should collaberate. I've posted several times on this article, and I keep getting attacked by people thinking I'm saying "since he's the judge, he's obviously right."

And last but not least, even if you are highly skilled in the way of laws does not (automaticaly) make you a fairer judge. Some laws can be circumvented by reading the letter of the law instead of following the laws intention... Just take the "up-skirt" issue that was recently discussed.....

I disagree. There are some "bad apples." There have been many racist judges, for example. However, we can't assume that this Judge is one based on heresay. We must look at what he said. Also, there are issues with interpreting the letter of the law--but I see that as another reason to actually read the Judge's decision. It would be a bad thing if his decision happened to justify a double standard wherein we could ignore other the laws of other nations.

Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA

[mpe]

First, the US and the Russians should be working togehter in theese matters.

But the Americans chose not to, in the process breaking Russian law.

The russians surely don't want to protect theese guys but they sure should have a fair amount of saying in the matter and that does not seem to have been the case.

They probably do want to protect their citizens being effectivly kidnapped by foreign governments. This isn't the first time Russians have commited no crime in the US and been arrested there. Hopefully Russia will now put the US on its list of "bad countries".

Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA

[MoneyT]

But if we just kill the terrorists, then we have no one to supplie the weapons too, problem solved. You need to follow the "logic" full circle to get it.

Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA

[thelexx]

Have you read it? Please post a link if you have, I can't find it. What I can find are several articles with statements like these:

From http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_312763.html
The men claim the FBI acted improperly by covertly stealing their passwords and using that information to gather evidence against them.

Their lawyers contend that all material obtained from the computers should be suppressed ahead of any trial.

Seattle District Judge John Coughenour rejected the motion on the grounds that "the (FBI) agents had good reason to fear that if they did not copy the data, (the) defendant's co-conspirators would destroy the evidence".

He also added privacy rights contained within the Fourth Amendment do not extend to individuals or property located outside the US.

From http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=5 82&e=1&cid=582&u=/nm/20021005/wr_nm/tech_russianha cker_dc
Russian's state security service, the FSB, lodged a complaint against the FBI earlier this year, alleging that the FBI didn't have authorization to break into a computer system in Russia and download files.

The FBI countered, and the judge agreed, that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions.

Seems pretty clear the judge is saying that the FBI doesn't need to follow the laws of either our own country or those of any other nation in an international pursuit of 'justice'.

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.

Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA

[Quixote]

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.

Please point out where in the constitution does it say that it applies to US citizens only?

Can't find it? I thought so.

Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA

[MoneyT]

It doesn't have to. The constitution is termed the supreme law of the land (the land in this case reffering to the US). The constitution is just that, it's a collection of laws, enforceable by the government which it creates. Our laws, as people here keep saying, don't apply in other countries. This therefore works two ways. We can't persecute you in another country under our laws, but you can't claim protection in another country under our laws.

I didn't say this was right or wrong, I just said that's the way it is.

Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA

[Quikah]

Please point out where in the constitution does it say that it applies to US citizens only?

It is called the Preamble.

Re:No wonder everyone hates the USA

[mpe]

They did commit a crime in the US. They broke into US computer systems and stole data from the US.

Problem is that the evidence against them was gathered by crooks. Specifically crooks enguaged in the same kind of crimes they were accused of. Sounds like the Russians have good grounds for appeal. Since how can the evidence be trustworthy?
Remember that the standard is ment to be "beyond reasonable doubt", if the evidence comes from crooks it's hardly capable of providing that standard of proof.

Re:One rule for one...

[scott1853]

They seem nice to me too.

Matter of fact, I get e-mails every day from this lonely Russian women that's just looking for a good American man to marry her.

Russia

[technix4beos]

Why has Russia been so subdued in the media lately? Is it really because they have been broken by the US, or is something deeper going on?

US policy makers know some answers, but aren't talking. People in various circles of thought (re: conspiracy) know things, but don't have proof, per se.

This whole Iraq issue is a big smokescreen. Russia is no longer important. The real issue the American public should be scared of is the recent EU submission by the US, that will not only give more power to the US, but in the long run, make it near to impossible for other countries to counter.

Scary.

Re:Russia

[Stonehand]

Because you're more likely to be watching US media rather than Russian media, and the US media would rather cover the Emmys, how much the stars of _Friends_ make, or whether any of the new crop of shows this season is any good?

Russia /does/ matter wrt Iraq, because it's unlikely that anybody's going to strip away their permanent seat and veto power on the Security Council. Ditto for France and China. All three have connections to Iraq, with Iraq owing oil and money to the former, and China somehow tied in with the Iraqi air defense system (having helped rebuild it... perhaps in exchange for information on the capabilities and tactics of US aircraft?)

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

[Gumshoe]

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.

These "technicalities" aren't just there to make like life awkward for the prosecution, they're safeguards against the possible abuse of the system.

Ask yourself this question: What would you rather have, a justice system where only some of the guilty people are punished but no innocent people; or, all the guilty people are punished but consequently some of the innocent people are too. Personally I want to live in a world where the first model is prevelant.

. Of course, there's a possible third answer: all the guilty people are punished, and none of the innocent people, but I view that as an unlikely scenario.

Re:Give me a break

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Okay, fair enough.

Re:Give me a break

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I normally don't reply to AC's, but this one is interesting enough, and represents a common enough misconception, that it's worth answering.

Is that so ?

Frankly, this entire hoopla about Holocaust and conquering Germany was apparently legal ONLY because we were attacked first.
If only Hitler stayed within his own borders there would be no case for intervening in his mass slaughter of the Jews.
After all, it was legal to discriminate against them in Nazi Germany.

The decision to go to war against Germany had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Which is pretty shameful, BTW -- there's a fair amount of evidence that Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin all knew exactly what Hitler was doing to the Jews and turned a blind eye. But the simple fact is that the UK and the US only went to war with Germany when their allies were attacked, and the USSR only when it was attacked itself. Stopping the Holocaust was, to put it bluntly, a side-effect of the war, not a cause.

In any case, war changes the rules. IMO almost any country in the world (even Stalin's USSR!) would have been justified in declaring war on Germany because of the Holocaust alone, and once war is declared, invasion and other violations of national sovereignty are pretty much part of the game. But we're not at war with Russia -- or did I miss something?

Re:Give me a break

[mpe]

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 effectivly saying "the end justifies the means". It is generally considered unacceptable for law enforcement to break the law.

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.

What about the technicality of criminals getting away their crimes because they are "police"? As appears to be the case here.

Re:Give me a break

[mpe]

Ask yourself this question: What would you rather have, a justice system where only some of the guilty people are punished but no innocent people; or, all the guilty people are punished but consequently some of the innocent people are too. Personally I want to live in a world where the first model is prevelant.

In practice with the second model some of the guilty will always escape punishment, they will be the corrupt cops framing up the innocent.

Re:Give me a break

[Blkdeath]

Ask yourself this question: What would you rather have, a justice system where only some of the guilty people are punished but no innocent people; or, all the guilty people are punished but consequently some of the innocent people are too. Personally I want to live in a world where the first model is prevelant.

The unfortunate part of that, however, is the fact that so many actually guilty criminals have used these technicalities to get around the system. How many times have police officers (only human, etc..) bungled a search warrant, or mis-timed (or forgotten) miranda rights (even though so many criminals know them by heart), or DNA, photographic, video, or other evidence either becomes tarnished (human error, etc.), or inadmissable due to some legal technicality?

Of course, the other end of the spectrum isn't perfect either. There have been stories too numerous to comprehend of innocent people who've spent decades in prison.

No system is perfect (one person's utopia is another person's dystopia, etc..), but I think the North American justice system is overdue for a significant overhaul.

Re:Give me a break

[JaredOfEuropa]

Stealing credit card numbers? I'd be surprised if this is not a crime under Russian law as well.

If an American thief, stealing credit card numbers from Russian computers, was hacked by the Russian police and subsequently arrested in Russia, what would the outcry be? Perhaps people would decide he got what he had coming to him.

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]

Looks like you missed the point. The poster wasn't worried about the holocaust. The point is to talk about when internal conditions in a country justify intervention, even when those conditions (seemingly) do not violate local law. You have failed to address the main contention. If you've got some holocaust bug that's gettin' at you, that's another story. Yes, you missed something.

Um, did you miss the whole second paragraph of my reply? I certainly did "address the main contention." If we had declared war on Germany solely because of the Holocaust, and subsequently intervened to stop it, that would have been perfectly justified, IMO. But we're not at war with Russia, and that means that both we and they have to play by the rules of civilian law -- in which the sovereignty of national borders is paramount. If we decided that their credit card hackers represented enough of a threat, or they decided that the DMCA represented enough of a threat, to go to war, that would be another story.

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

Re:New slogan to appear on US currency

[hitzroth]

More like: "Do as we say, or else."

Re:New slogan to appear on US currency

[dubiousmike]

Troll?!?
Is it a troll where is am FROM the US?!?

:P
Geesh, its not like I said, "Macs suck", "M$ is really looking out for us little guys" or "Cowboy Neil is from Russia".

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.

Re:Slight difference.

[mesozoic]

I'm perplexed that you people are unable to tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse. I'm not excusing what the FBI did, I'm not excusing the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov. I simply explained that there is a difference between American agents performing espionage against Russian citizens (who were in turn hacking American computers), and Russian citizens being arrested for violating an American law while in Russia. Granted, I think what happened to Sklyarov is wrong, but it's still a different issue.

And to all you who think America is a big evil empire: grow up, take a couple PoliSci courses, and find something worthwhile to argue about.

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.

Re:A little less bias, please.

[Shelled]

I agree the original post is just another editorial troll, but there's no reason to assume that judges aren't as stupid or biased as anyone with equivalent education. They just know more about the letter of the law. The argument from authority is usually a bad one.

Re:A little less bias, please.

[SlamMan]

No, I tihnk we can assume judges aren't stupid. "Biased, bigoted, make mistakes, work from thier own view point, have thier own adjendad" you can argue on aa case by case basis, but judges are rarely stupid.

Strange definition of pity

[Anonymous Coward]

"Taking pity on Gorshkov's family, they sentenced Gorshkov to 3 years in prison and a fine of nearly $700,000 USD"

With pity like this, who needs enemies?

Enforceable Jurisdiction

[ari_j]

Ah, once again, the principle of Enforceable Jurisdiction has come into play.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

The bureau created a fake company, called "Invita," and asked the Russians to come to Seattle for job interviews. The men were asked to prove their skills and given permission to scan an Invita computer network for vulnerabilities. The computers they used had software on them that logged every keystroke and FBI agents were able to later grab the men's passwords and download evidence off their computer network in Russia.

Interesting that they used human intelligence [HUMINT] to gain the passwords. Once they had the passwords, however, I wonder if they got [or needed] a warrant to search the Russian network.

If an agent were to lift a key, make a wax impression of it, return the key, and use the wax impression to make a duplicate of the key, it seems like he would still need a warrant before he could enter the door [and the premises behind it] that the key unlocked.

PS: For all you girlie-boyz with your panties tied up in knots, THESE RUSSKIES WERE STEALING CREDIT CARD NUMBERS!!! THEY ARE FELONS, NOT HEROES!!!

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?

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

[SlamMan]

Interesting point. I don't think the US is obligated to care about tthe civil liberties of foergin nationals in countries that aren't here, so I'd be suprised if US law says the FBI needs a search warrent in te first place. If it did, what juristiction would it have to go through to get one?

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

[mpe]

Interesting that they used human intelligence [HUMINT] to gain the passwords. Once they had the passwords, however, I wonder if they got [or needed] a warrant to search the Russian network.

Except they could not have got a warrent in the first place, unless Russian courts are in the habit of issuing warrents to foreigners.

For all you girlie-boyz with your panties tied up in knots, THESE RUSSKIES WERE STEALING CREDIT CARD NUMBERS!!! THEY ARE FELONS, NOT HEROES!!!

Problem is that the people who caught them are just as crooked. If a serial burglar discovered evidence of a murder would they just walk free?

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

[mpe]

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".

Also it dosn't make much sense to break laws in order to enforce laws.

If the fBI had all the warrants and permissions they needed, then why did the case "prompt a sharp rebuke from Moscow"?

Most likely because they would never have got any such permissions in the first place. Would US courts give such permissions to the Russian police?
Anyway the convictions are highly questionable, because the supposed "evidence" was gathered by crooks.

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

[mpe]

The point isn't that the russians are "heroes" it's that the FBI broke the law in trying to catch a crook. Doesn't that make the FBI as bad as the crook?

If anything it makes them considerably worst crooks.

My only question is why doesn't the KGB arrest the FBI for violating one of their citizens rights. :)

The KGB dosn't exist any more. Through the FBI people involved had better make sure they never set foot in Russia or anywhere which has an extradition treaty with Russia.

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

[SlamMan]

Actually, i don't think you are breaking a US law. You're probobly breaking Russian law but IANARL.

extradition? Hypocracy?

[autopr0n]

How did the FBI catch this guy? I mean, actually catch him? Extradition? If so, then the Russian government agreed to allow him to be tried in the US.

If the Russian government felt that the FBI's crimes weren't very much of a big deal.

Besides Russia isn't exactly a bastion of civil liberties anyway, I'm willing to bet that Russian law enforcement breaks their own laws all the time.

What the FBI did may have been technicaly illigal, but you have to consider motives and damage as well. Buzz Aldrin didn't get prosicuted when he punched that moon-hoax guy in the face and he shouldn't have been.

Invitation to FBI

[Ektanoor]

The Institute of Internet Security recently created in Moscow, considering the importance of the new methods used on arresting the two Chelyabinsk hackers, invites the FBI investigators to participate on the conference "International Investigations on Cyberspace". Submission of thesis and demonstration of the new practices will be highly accepted. There should be mentioned that, Russian investigators are eager to learn and apply the new methods due to the new conditions they face on cyberspace and will be very happy to see their american colleagues...

hypocrisy

[tmark]

"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."

You complain about the discipling of the Russian hackers, yet call for the government officials to be disciplined for the same thing ?

The only people who can say that the government officials broke the law is the Russian judicial system. If they think the US broke their laws, they should go and prosecute them.

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.

Perhaps the point is jurisdictional?

[Erich]

If Russians are breaking into computers in the US, the crime is (perhaps, IANAL) committed in the US, and so the US has jurisdiction. If the FBI breaks into Russian computers (without consent from anyone) then, by the same token, the crime would be in Russia. So it would be up to the Russian government to prosecute the FBI (or investigators in the FBI), right?

Sometimes things aren't so "the-USA-is-really-bad" as Slashdot says they are (and sometimes they are, and sometimes they're probably worse).

Of course, if we use Law and Order as our legal source (and, though IANAL, I've watched a lot of L&O), then Jack McCoy would say that we have a responsibility to prosecute criminals when their own countries won't, and that as long as an element of the crime was taking place within jurisdiction of the court, the court should have prosecutorial powers. But in the episode where Jack and Carmichael were outside of the Supreme Court and the decision comes out, after attempting to prosecute a foreign diplomat for murder, they (frustratingly) don't tell us what the decision is. D'oh!

What the article said.

[GreyWolf3000]

Russian's state security service, the FSB, lodged a complaint against the FBI earlier this year, alleging that the FBI didn't have authorization to break into a computer system in Russia and download files.

The FBI countered, and the judge agreed, that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions.

The article here said:

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.

The subtle yet immensly pertinent difference has been completely lost to everyone posting here. Now it's a complete freebie for anyone wanting to up their karma. All you have to say is, "No wonder everyone thinks Americans are jerks."

Re:What the article said.

[mesozoic]

Precisely. Keep in mind that the FSB (Federal Security Service) is basically Russia's reincarnation of the KGB. They would do everything in their power, including hacking into American computers, if it were considered a necessity for one of their own missions. The fact that they are publicly denouncing this behavior is analogous to the Chinese complaining about our spy planes near their borders.

They play spy games on us, we play spy games on them. That's simply how it works. The only difference is that in America, the FBI actually discloses things like this when their investigation is finished. In Russia, if the FSB hacked your computer, they'd never say. Period.

Can't compare to Skylarov

[KillerBob]

Can't compare these jokers to Dmitri Skylarov. Skylarov was doing something that's allowed by Russian law, and frankly shouldn't be illegal in America. These jokers were running credit card scams which aren't allowed at all, no matter where you go.

The Russians objected to the FBI's means of gathering the evidence, not to the prosecution for the crimes themselves. The FBI "hacked" the computers by luring the Russians to the USA under the guise of a job interview, and installing keylogging software on their PC's as they were invited to hack a virtual network that the FBI set up. Using the keylogging software, the FBI was able to get their passwords, and use it to remotely access their computers in Russia. Using this evidence, they were extradited to the USA for prosecution.

What they did could be called Entrapment, and it could be called Espionage. But I still have to laugh that the l337 h4xx0rz from Russia were dumb enough to allow it to happen. They were running unsecured boxes at home, and for some unearthly reason decided to remotely access those boxes while partaking in an experiment to hack a virtual network in Seattle. Idiots. They get no sympathy at all from me.

Re:Can't compare to Skylarov

[Mr_Icon]

Goddammit, will people learn how to spell his name? It's SKLYAROV, not SKYLAROV. Y after L, not the other way around. YA is that Cyrillic "backwards R", and when it follows a consonant it simply "softens" it, while dropping the "y" ("j") sound. Since all Ls in English are "soft" anyway, it's best to omit the "Y" when pronouncing the name.

So it's pronounced "Skla-rOv". Not "skee-lArov". And spelled SKLYAROV.

Now let me tell you how I feel about that backwards "R" in "Toys-R-Us"...

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:about this "double-standard"

[MoneyT]

And that's as it should be. The courts in the US are for dealing with US laws. Under US laws, what the FBI did was fine, therefore, from the court's standpoint, the case is closed. If you want to argue the diplomatic and international laws, well then you have to take it up with the diplomats.

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

[MoneyT]

In a world increasingly networked together, boundries and laws blur together into a rather ugly mess. Perhaps it is time for a world government. Unfortunately, there is far too much difficulty in establishing one. First and foremost, what structure should it take? Do we allow countries to exist with their own governments and each vote on a world leader? Do we try to combine countries into the same structure as the US, and have a world government divided into 3 branches, with the countries acting as "states". Or perhpas we should impliment a Parliment system like the UK.

Then there's the issues of enforcement, election (or succesion), new laws, old laws, location, power of each participating country, and what to do if a country doesn't want in. The UN was supposed to be a step in this direction, but as we can see, it's fairly weak when it comes to cooperation to get something done.

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:USA enforcing beliefs on the rest of the world

[Midnight Thunder]

he USA trying to push it's own agenda on the world, enforcing their laws and beliefs on other countries and cultures, makes me sick. If there is any hope for the USA or the rest of the world, America must be restrained from trying to enforce its own laws in other countries. Trade embargoes are needed against the USA for such disgusting practices.

With previous presidencies there has been the same thing happening, but never to the scale that the Bush administration is trying to go to. The best comparison I have is of a teenage brat who hassed pissed everyone off and then wonders why nobody supports him when he goes an picks on the next guy, whether or not this time he may or may not be in the right. Until the USA can start acting a team player, it is going to feel that it lacts respect - this goes to any country acting in the same manner.

There are countries around the world, that still 'interfere' with the foreign policy of other countries. But at the same the methods appear to be more to keep things calm, than to fluff everyone's feathers and to risk a bigger problem down the road. Sure Russia and Chechnia probably is just as a bad, but not everything fits into a generalisation :/

BTW In the case of the story, it would probably have been wiser for the Russians to charge these guys, if they were resident on Russian soil. It does happen in the international political arena that if a crime is judged extreme enough that criminals can be handed over to the other country. Ironically, they will probably get better treatement in a US jail that in one in Russia.

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!

American laws

[SlugLord]

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

Yep. There's no American law against breaking Russian laws. In fact, there's no American law against violating non-American citizens rights that Americans would be guaranteed in the constitution. If you're not an American citizen and you are arrested in the United States, you aren't guaranteed a jury of your peers, etc. Usually the punishment is extradition, but when no country will take you back, you get to rot in American prison without trial for the rest of your life. (Sadly, 60 minutes doesn't post old stories on the internet, so I can't put up a link for more information.)

Re:American laws

[sheldon]

"If you're not an American citizen and you are arrested in the United States, you aren't guaranteed a jury of your peers, etc. "

That's not true. The whole reason why the army is keeping the Al Qaeda illegal combatants down in Cuba is because if they brought them back to the US they'd be protected by US laws, and in theory we'd then have to release all of them because they weren't read their miranda rights when detained.

"Usually the punishment is extradition, but when no country will take you back, you get to rot in American prison without trial for the rest of your life. "

Uh oh...

"(Sadly, 60 minutes doesn't post old stories on the internet, so I can't put up a link for more information.)"

Oh that's convenient. You should get a job doing news for Rush Limbaugh or the American Spectator who use the same copout routinely.

Re:American laws

[norwoodites]

The base in Cuba is US soil. So the US government is braking their own rules so they can get people at home liking them?

All US bases at outside of the US are actually US soil, if someone steps on the US base they can and will be prosecuted in US courts.

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

[g4dget]

So your saying that if someone gets robbed its thier fault becuase they didn't secure thier wallet well enough?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Physical security and computer security are very different. Security involving personal property and security involving businesses is very different.

Furthermore, if you put valuables into a bank's safe deposit box and the bank leaves their vault and the boxes unlocked, the bank is negligent.

And we shouldn't do anything to the guy that robbed him

I said no such thing. People who break into computer systems are clearly criminals. The question is who pays for catching them, and whether we let the businesses who behaved negligently go free.

Re:and the real criminals are going free

[g4dget]

How do you know it was shoddy security? Maybe the hackers were really good.

If you watch a lot of movies, you do get the impression that some brilliant hacker can get into any computer system with enough effort. Reality is different. Computer systems can be made completely impervious to break-ins by outsiders, and unlike physical security, doing so is not costly.

I hope that you have your house very, very secure. If you don't have bars over the windows, I'm coming in and taking everything, and that's entirely your fault for not having bars over the windows.

If you think that the police is going to do anything more than spend 10 minutes on taking a report for a break-in at your house, you haven't been a victim of a crime. I have.

For practical purposes, people are responsible for protecting themselves from criminals: insurance, bars over their windows, etc. And the motivation for doing that is that if you lose it, it's your money that's at stake--in most cases, the police will not recover it for you.

But companies that are negligent with your and my information on-line don't lose much themselves--they just get out of it with a simple "oops". They should be responsible for their negligence--that's the only way they will take the steps necessary to safeguard your and my information.

Re:and the real criminals are going free

[WetCat]

Computer systems can be made completely impervious to break-ins by outsiders, and unlike physical security, doing so is not costly.

Tend to completely disagree.
1) Large computer systems are hard to change and maintain, regardless of their language and tools
2) Do you know about Goedel's theorem of uncompleteness? One of the results of that theorem is that figuring out if some configurations in complex enough systems
are correct (read unbreakable ) is not possible.
Surely you can create a very small webserver that serves only 1 or 2 pages completely unbreakable.
In complex, large systems, attack defense cost a fortune and not a panacea...

Re:Hypocritical? Americans? NO WAY!!

[DEBEDb]

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

Wow

[JohnG]

"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." That's funny, I thought Dmitry was arrested in the United States. You learn something new every day.
Maybe the congress critters would take our crys for rights more seriously if so many of us didn't run around with tin foil hats.

Read the fucking article

[NineNine]

This has nothing to do with the Adobe case. This case was about a real hacker stealing real credit card numbers.

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?

Re:It makes sense

[nuggz]

No, Elcomsoft and Sklyarov broke the DMCA while in Russia, and the US ruled they could still prosecute, Russian citizens in Russia for violating a US law.

In this case the court ruled that US law enforcement can break Russian law in Russia, and such evidence is still admissible in court, although it is clearly illegally attained.

Re:It makes sense

[ross.w]

I seem to recall that the FBI agents have been charged with unauthorised access to a computer system in Russia, and would be arrested if they went there. Does anyone have a link for this?

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:How would we feel...

[Stonehand]

I would feel that Larry Flint would be a dumbass for visiting Saudi Arabia, given that he's probably aware of the efficiency of their legal system and it basis in Sharia.

Similar opinions apply to missionaries who are so naive as to try to convert Muslim fanatics, like the members of the Abu Sayyaf and the Taliban. If you're going into a region that considers you a criminal (or will, if you're about to piss them off), you shouldn't be surprised when they enforce their beliefes on you.

Re:How would we feel...

[teetam]

Exactly my point. Last year, in the midst of all the animosity (this happened after 9/11), we managed to get these Americans out of Afghanistan unharmed. Why did we do that? If they had indeed broken a local law, why didn't we let them be punished for it as per their laws?

Seems to me that Americans only have to obey American laws wherever they are in the world. At the same time, people of all other countries have to obey American laws even in their own country!

Re:How would we feel...

[Stonehand]

Partly it's politics. Well, it's probably /mostly/ politics -- letting American citizens die overseas doing 1st-Amendment-covered activities, especially religious ones, wouldn't be too popular with the voters.

There's also a little bit about how the Taliban wasn't a recognized government, so probably the US official position would be that, as illegitimate, the Taliban had no legitimate authority over American missionaries there. *shrug*

If an American got busted overseas for, say, theft or homicide, I doubt there'd be an extraction mission, because those are illegal o'er here, too. Getting sentenced to death for adultery in Nigeria, hm, that might result in an uproar, but still, probably less so than death-for-religious-speech.

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.

Re:RTFA?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I found this aspect of the case interesting, and so performed a Google search for other articles. One of which spelled it out in more detail: the suspects were indeed arrested at the end of the fake job interview, before they returned home; the passwords and other information that they supplied during the course of the interview were later used to gather more evidence. Therefore, no extradition from foreign soil was required; therefore, no Russian court had to grant approval.

Side note: does the fact that these (successful) computer criminals were looking for salaried work mean that crime really doesn't pay?

Re:USA enforcing beliefs on the rest of the world

[jea6]

He'll get better treatment, as long as he doesn'y meet the "Tossed Salad" guy.

Re:No sympathy for this guy, but Sovereignty Issue

[WolfWithoutAClause]

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.

You can't be serious! In Japan the age of consent is 14, in Moslem countries it's even lower! In the UK the legal drinking age is 18. There's not exactly such a thing as copyright in China, so is it OK for chinese to come across and start manufacturing CDs? During WWII would it have been ok for the germans to go into America and carry on 'purifying'?

You're crazy! If anything they should have to follow both sets of laws.

The situation of a person of nationality X in country Y breaking those laws is rather different to a person of nationality X in country X breaking laws of country Y. Nearly every country demands foreigners to follow all their laws whilst in their country; but there are rare exceptions for pragmatic reasons.

Would it have been illegal in the US

[Gerry Gleason]

If the FBI followed the same rules they would (warrant, probable cause, etc.) then it is possible the Judge acted reasonable. I'd be interested in which is actually the case here.

Since it is also reasonable for a sovereign nation to have other rules, this question isn't really central. The burdon of proof should be on the U.S. and the FBI to show why they need to curcumvent those rules. And then the obvious question of what court would have authority to decide whether this burdon is met.

Money from U.S. to Israel like fuel on a fire:

[Futurepower(R)]

About that, see What should be the Response to Violence? .

A quote:

"The money donated by the U.S. government to Israel is like fuel thrown on a fire. The amount is said to total about $5.25 billion per year, when all amounts are considered. This is an enormous amount of money to a prosperous country of well-educated people. The population of Israel is about 5.8 million people (1996), so Israel receives from the U.S. government an astounding $905 per year for every man, woman and child who lives there. (In the entire world, there are only about 14,000,000 Jews.)"

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
~~~

Re:No sympathy for this guy, but Sovereignty Issue

[dh003i]

Obviously, you did NOT read what I said.

A person should obey the laws of whatever nation they're in. But if someone's in China and (while in China) does something which is illegal by US law, then comes to the US, (s)he shouldn't be arrested for that. However, if while in the US, they break US law, they should be arrested.

What I'm talking about is person of nationality X in country X doing something which is illegal in country Y, then travelling to country Y and being arrested. This is a violation of sovereignty and human rights.

If person X of nationality X travels to nation Y, they should obey the laws of nation Y, and not be expected to follow any of the laws of nation X. We can not ask a person to obey the laws of two nations, because those two laws may conflict.

The laws of the US shouldn't follow its citizens wherever they go. When US citizens leave US territory, they are no longer obliged to obey US laws, but only the laws of whatever nation they're on.

Elections

[TheLink]

How about an election where you can say Yes, don't care or No to candidates?

Yes= +1, No = -1, don't care or spoilt vote = 0.

You can vote on more than one candidate.

Total them up. Least negative wins.

Alternatively: Most positive = win, if no positives, least negative= "probation" seat, other negatives banned from running for post for X years.

Is it better to put in an unknown person who nobody cares about than a "net negative" candidate? Maybe not. But hey you wanted democracy didn't you?

What are the chances this system will ever be implemented... ;)

Re:Elections

[BreakWindows]

What about a vote of "No confidence", which would be a vote of "I dislike and can't trust any of these jackasses". If "no confidence" wins, we have to rerun the election, until someone we actually want gets the job.

Seems a little better than the current system.

Re:No sympathy for this guy, but Sovereignty Issue

[Stonehand]

If a US citizen travels to, say, Moscow, and offers to spy for the FSB, and it's noticed -- you can sure as hell bet that he's risking arrest when he comes back. Somehow, that doesn't seem wrong to me.

Evidence of WMD

[TheLink]

Yeah, the US knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

How? They kinda sold them to Iraq.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+bioweap on s

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?p ag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1 033423291456&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=9683321 88492&call_pagepath=News/News

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?

Why Didn't the Russians Prosecute Him?

[reallocate]

>> ...US law is above Russian law.

The U.S. would have been negligent not to prosecute simply because he used computers in another country. I'm ignorant of U.S. and Russian laws regarding extradition, etc., but presumably they exist.

Perhaps a better question is why the Russians did not prosecute? Is it legal for Russians to break into networks in other countries?

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:"Apparently"

[mpe]

The US is preparing to invade a sovereign nation -- advertising the fact at the top of its lungs for months now -- in a war that will add significantly to the over 500,000 Iraqi civilians murdered by its bombing and sanctions over the past decade.

Currently the US is getting upset about the Iraqis attempting to defend their airspace. Wonder how many Americans will wind up dead too, especially if Iraq actually has the weapons Bush and Blair claim exist.
As for the oil issue by the time the war is finished all the Iraqi oil wells will look like those in Kuwait did at the end of the last gulf war. Blowing up an oil well does not require anything high tech.

Re:What are you talking about?

[dh003i]

Essentially, what you are saying is that if a person performs a certain action while located in country X, but that action is in or partly in country Y, that person can be arrested in country Y should he go there.

This violates sovereignty for several reasons. I'll explain how by stating a simple definition of when a nation has the sovereignty to charge someone with a crime. If all of the following criteria are met, then nation X has the right to charge person A with a crime:

1. If person A was within nation X at the time of the incident.

[If person A wasn't within nation X at the time of the incident, nation X has no sovereignty as person A must have been in another nation, thus obliged only to follow that nation's laws]

2. If person A's actions took place in nation X.

[If the action's don't take place in nation X, then nation X has no sovereignty over those actions.]

3. If person A's actions affected nation X.

[If person A's actions don't affect nation X, they are of no concern to nation X.]

4. If person A is in nation X presently (at the time (s)he's to be charged with a crime).

[If the person is within another nation, then nation X has not the sovereignty to bring that person to trial]

Re:Hypocritical? Americans? NO WAY!!

[Frank of Earth]

Laf, who would be foolish enough to try?

Mod me down, like it or not, the reason why we can extend our sphere of influence to other countries is simply because we can. 40% of my paycheck doesn't go to the government [defense/offense] for nothing.

If Russian gave a shit, why don't they stand up and say something? I don't see ANY mention of ANY Russians officials who are upset about the US hacking into their systems. In face, WTF is as "foreign computer network" anyways?

It figures that /. anti-american posters would feed on an post like this. Why don't you spend your time and defend someone that isn't a criminal that had their rights lost, country hacked, whatever, because of American's sphere of influence.

Mod me down, I don't give a shit, I have excellent Karma so my posts will continue to come out +2. I'm just sick and tired of all the anti American comments.

Re:USA enforcing beliefs on the rest of the world

[King_TJ]

I don't deny the USA has a serious problem with trying to meddle in the affairs of other countries and governments.

On the other hand, this case hardly seems like one of them. Otherwise, what are you trying to say? It's only a belief that stealing other people's credit card numbers and emptying their bank accounts is a "crime" in the USA?

The Russian hackers would have never been touched at all by the USA if they weren't stealing the funds of US citizens!

It's one thing to request that the US refrains from interfering with something that's initially none of their business, but I see it as "self-defense" to make every attempt to stop someone who is directly attacking or commiting crimes against our own people.

Obviously, we didn't just fly into Russia, grab these guys, and haul them back here. We simply fooled them into coming to us. If they were more cautious or did a little more research, they probably wouldn't have fallen for the fake company and "job interview" and then we'd still be unable to touch them.

Re:Okay.

[dh003i]

Yes, they would. It occured in Mexico. Mexico -- NOT THE US -- would have sovereignty over it.

Its really simple, you have to obey the laws of whatever nation you're in, and only the nation you were in at the time you committed an action can bring charges against you for that action, because you were in that nation, thus under that nation's sovereignty.

Re:US jails?

[phorm]

Nah. The black people are in the higher-security prisons, or on death row, because the aren't able to afford pricey lawyers and live on mommy and daddy's budget like some moronic slashdot posters I could mention.

nit pick...

[Gorimek]

the UK and the US only went to war with Germany when their allies were attacked,

The UK went to war when it's allies were attacked, but the US did not until two years later when it was attacked by Japan in Pearl Harbor. Germany immediately declared war on the US.

So technically the US made no decision to go to war. Japan and Germany made that decision for them.

Not that I get how is credit card hacking the same as the holocaust, but one vaguely related point is that most of the killed jews were not German. so had they stayed within their borders, it would have been a much smaller holocaust.

What? I *said* it's a nitpick!

Re:No sympathy for this guy, but Sovereignty Issue

[Stonehand]

It's not an issue of sovereignty, because individual people aren't nations -- _Snow Crash_ excluded. It's not a sovereignty issue if a private citizen chooses to flout the law of his own country. Contracts, obligations, and responsibilities do not magically vaporize should one make it to foreign soil, any more than one can protect one's own salary from the IRS by accepting it in cash in the lobby of the French embassy.

A citizen retains the obligations of his citizenship, and -- depending on the country he's physically in -- possibly some of the rights and privileges, at least should he make it to the consulate... In addition, being in a country in which you are not a citizen may cause you to have second-class status; for instance, you can much more easily be ejected from the country.

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

Re:Hypocritical? Americans? NO WAY!!

[Frank of Earth]

Yeah, good source. I like this headline on their site:

Sensation: Cities Found on the Moon!

Back in the 1960's

[Newer Guy]

Back in the 1960's, the U.S. State Department used to warn U.S. citizens of the dangers of travelling to the USSR, siting that the KGB (secret police) could do whatever they wanted to them while they were there. NOW..we have the Russian Foreign Ministry warning Russian Citizens of the dangers of travelling in the USA, siting that the FBI (secret police) could do whhatever they wanted to them while they were there. Is it me, or is something really, really wrong here? It sure seems to me that the USA has become more and more oppressive even as the (former) USSR becomes less so.

Re:Back in the 1960's

[fw3]

Back in the 1960's, the U.S. State Department used to warn U.S. citizens of the dangers of travelling to the USSR, siting that the KGB (secret police) could do whatever they wanted to them

What's news in this? break the law in a foreign state and you're potentially in very big trouble, and under the local rules.

If a US citizen leaves the working compounds in Saudi Arabia and runs afoul of the authorities the penalty for stealing is the loss of a hand.

These boys were stupid enough to come to the US and demonstrate their 'prowess' and got arrested.

Nation states laws only apply within thier jurisdiction, what's more, usually foreign policy is clear on these matters. It's not illegal under US law for companies to practice monopoly methods outside the US, never has been and probably never will be.

What's more, this is recognized. So while I have no idea how Russia feels about this, I'm dubious on any concerns that the FBI was breaking Russian law. FBI may have been somewhat unethical in sniffing the suspect's passwords but those are the rules of law enforcement: if you can trick the perp into doing something stupid you win. Once the passwords were in hand no cracking was needed to gain access.

Finaly this is how it's done in the 'real world'. and just as there are places where the US State Departement can't get a US citizen out of trouble, just so, even if Russia wanted these guys back (which I doubt) I rather expect they understand the score.

This is similar to how Chris Tresco was nabbed, Dod was infiltrated, evidence gathered and a bunch of kids who thought they were all 'leet discovered otherwise. As it happens I've met Chris - he did a linux server config for me several years back, nice enough guy (but not all that sharp with linux)

Re:Israel??!!

[mpe]

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.

Or possibly he has. Being at war can ensure that political opposition is reduced. Claim that the country is under threat and thet not standing behind the leader is unpatriotic often works quite well. Also a policy of aparthied worked for some time South Africa...

Re:No sympathy for this guy, but Sovereignty Issue

[dh003i]

Irrelevant of where the crime was committed, the punishment should be determined by the nation the criminal was in when (s)he committed the crime, whether (s)he crosses borders or not afterwards.

If someone in Mexico shoots someone in the US, then travels to the US, (s)he should be arrested, because murder is illegal in Mexico just as it is in the US. However, the punishment should in accord with Mexican law, not US law. In this case I doubt there's any difference, between the punishment for murder in Mexico and that for it in Texas.

From The Register.uk.com

[DaytonCIM]

A Russian cracker, tricked by the FBI into visiting the US on the pretext of a job interview, has been sentenced to three years in jail.

Vasiliy Gorshkov, 27, was also ordered to pay $690,000 in compensation for his crimes by Federal District Court Judge John Coughenour, who took his family's medical and financial problems into account in sentencing the Russian to serve far less time than the 16 years demanded by prosecutors.

Last October, Gorshkov was convicted of 20 counts of conspiracy, various computer crimes, and fraud against online banks and e-commerce operations. His co-accused, Alexey Ivanov, 20, pleaded guilty in August to similar charges along with five counts of extortion, Reuters reports. He is currently in custody, awaiting sentencing.

The circumstances surrounding the November 2000 arrests of the pair put the spotlight of FBI tactics used in the case and prompted Russia's counterintelligence service, the FSB, to take the unprecedented step of charging FBI Agent Michael Schuler with hacking.

Schuler was praised by US authorities for an elaborate ruse that resulted in the arrests of Gorshkov and Ivanov. The operation arose out of a nationwide FBI investigation into Russian computer intrusions against e-commerce sites, and online banks which identified Gorshkov and Ivanov as prime suspects.

It was suspected the pair cracked into victims' computers to steal credit card information and other financial information, prior to attempting to extort money from the victims with threats to expose the sensitive data to the public or damage the victims' systems. Gorshkov and Ivanov were also suspected of defrauding PayPal through a scheme in which stolen credit cards were used to generate cash and to pay for computer parts.

The FBI lured the two to the US by posing as representatives of the fictional 'Invita' security firm, and offering the dynamic duo good jobs if they could prove their skills.

Of course the Feds set up a box rigged with a key logger and then set the pair to work demonstrating their amazing prowess. When they accessed their machines back home, the Feds recorded the login info, and later returned to root the boxes.

Having placed the pair in handcuffs, the FBI obtained a wealth of evidence from the compromised machines.

All perfectly above-board a judge said, ruling that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions. Russia disagreed and, anxious to assert its sovereignty, filed a complaint against Schuler to the US Department of Justice.

No further news of that as yet. The case will probably die a quiet death with some form of diplomatic compromises and vague promises from the FBI to work more closely with the Russians in future.