Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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!
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
do as we say, not as we do
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.
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.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
"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?
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.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
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.
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."
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?
I am alone, yet I also surf the universal backwash of undifferentiated Being, which is LOVE.
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.
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.)
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.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
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?
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!
All your favorite sites in one place!
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.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
"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