Posted by
timothy
on Saturday October 05, @12:23PM from the hubris-on-both-sides dept. 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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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
"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?
Fortunately, Bush has foreseen the resistance to his irresponsible foreign policies and come up with a solution! [theonion.com]
American government - looking out for your interests, at home and abroad;-).
questions of constitutionality aside, Dimitry did indeed violate the DMCA. He made his presentation in the United States. Had he not presented, he probably wouldnt have been arrested.
But what they were charging him with was product development, not import/export, so I think the criticism was well founded. Had they indicted the CEO of Elcomsoft, I could see juristiction being available... But not for Demitry.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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!
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}
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.
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.
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.
It would be more accurate to say: It's not illegal to break into any system, do any kind of damage, and arrest using entrapment, as long as you're an agent of U.S. law enforcement, since any judge that doesn't support you 100% can later be labeled a "Communist", uh... "Terrorist" sympathizer...
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!!!
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?
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.
Well... isn't everyone in the world an American and speaks English too instead of that hard-to-understand Mexican? I mean, Russia's our partner in the War Against Terror!
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...
"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.
The 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.
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.
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.
"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.
Someone has to deal with cross-border crime. If the Russian (or whoever) government is incapable of catching their own criminals - and these were apparently primarily thieves, not just crackers - then, much as we might dislike the methods, the FBI is doing us all a favor.
Having said that, it is a pity that cases like this cannot be tried in the International Criminal Court, where the issue of legitimate and illegitimate means of gathering evidence could be impartially considered.
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!
It all depends on whos view you use. It was OK for the Russians to break US law in russia, from the russians point of view. It was ok for the US to break Russian law from the US, from the point of view of the US. However, I would venture to say, It is wrong for the US to break Russian law from the US , from the russians point of view. AND it is wrong for Russians to break US from russia, from the US point of view.
Now with that all said and done, it is the side with the power to do something about the situation that makes the change. Obviously the russian gov doesn't care, or (most likly) can't much about the situation of the FBI breaking their laws. The US, however, does care about the russians breaking US laws in Russian, and can and HAS done something about it. I don't agree with the US.
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.
This is not something that writing your congressman can fix. The problem is in the American feeling of superiority that emanates from all walks of life. When America and its citizens realize that they are not the only important people in the world, things WILL change. If this isn't realized soon, then no one should feel sorry for America when shit happens to her.
Something's gone wrong with our society. Rule of law vs political influence and money. I'm still coming to grips with the insurance companies and radar gun manufacturers using law enforcement as profit centers.
Life for The average guy is really starting to be faced with the outcomes of all the various dirty tricks that are shaping society. Still flooding the country with the H1B workers despite so many of us being unable to find work.
There's some cold hearted motherfuckers in this world, how have they gained so much control over our lives?
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!
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 se
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.
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.
"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.
No, I don't want the US government enforcing or even respecting foreign laws. Why should I?
And yes, I want the US to enforce US law as much as possible on anyone who acts to harm any American in any way. Why shouldn't I?
The US government has the right and even the responsibility to act in the National Interest, just like every other government. Duh!
To you critics of the US: demonstrate to me even one time when your government acted beyond it's own National Interest - and following the US lead doesn't count. Here, I'll give you some US examples to demonstrate what I'm talking about: WWI, WWII, and the League Of Nations/UN.
BTW: To you critics of the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy: where were you when Clinton was Wagging the Dog in Serbian; bombing Libia; bombing Iraq? That latest is especially hideous; occuring purely as a distraction from the Impeachment, it made weapon inspections impossible, and thereby guaranteed the continuation of the 10 year embargo which has produced so much suffering and death among the people of Iraq. And before you Bush-haters try to pin that on Bush the Elder - no one ever imagined that the Bush administration would be followed by one so cowardly and heartless as to ignore the people of Iraq and their plight for the next eight years!
There are plenty of reasons to critisize US foreign policy, but the truth is that the situation we are in is the accumulation of many years of mistakes. Personally, I think the US failed to adapt to its new role as sole remaining superpower. As such, we need to be, and be seen to be, as even-handed with the rest of the world as possible. We did become more even-handed in Asia, but barely did so in Central Europe, and have actually become worse than ever in the Middle East.
Whatever. At least Bush is focused more on addressing the problems and less on pawing the help.
So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia
This isn't really accurate. They were busted when on US soil after coming here after falling for an FBI ruse. If they'd remained on Russian soil, they would've never been arrested by us. If asked politely, I suppose there's some chance the Russians would've detained and later extradited them, but once in our hands there was no reason to test that theory.
Likewise, if the FBI agents who broke the Russian law visit Russia, they may be busted for having broken Russian law. In theory Russia could ask the US to arrest and later extradite the FBI agents so they can be tried. In practice it doesn't appear as though the Russians care enough to raise a big stink about it. The Russians who were busted were, after all, common criminals.
There seems to be a certain symmetry to the picture, no?
How would we feel 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!
If the FBI broke into their computer systems, then the FBI should be sentenced to spend time in the slammer, and these men should receive monetary compensation for the inconvenience.
"... 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."
Disgusted as I am with the DMCA, I think Timothy's comment was quite a stretch. If I break a Russian law in the U.S., I'm not going to travel to Russia anytime soon, especially to a public seminar to detail what I did.
It seems that most debaters so far wants to see the russian crooks sacked but are worried about the liberty FBI was taking while hacking the computer that was still residing in russia. So if the computer where actually in the USA and accessed through an IP tunnel back from russia (giving the access point the russian IP)? Would it still be wrong then? How can you be sure of the geographical location while at the hack? Just the IP will not do the job.
The only problem I have with FBI doing what they are doing is that they are not allowed to do what they are doing. The Internet should have its own international laws. Local laws should only apply to the people using it. FBI should in such an international internet law have protocols to follow and warrants like admittance granted before accessing computers in russia and elsewhere. The same should apply if my country would like to hack a computer belonging to someone doing bad things to people here. Ladies and gentlemen, it's a war out there, lets agree on rules how to fight it nomatter where!
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
I would suggest the FBI agents involved not travel anywhere that the Russian government has jurisdiction. I'm sure they have the same standards we have with respect to the sanctity of their systems.
These guys were stealing money from US companies. The FBI wouldn't give a shit if they were ripping off Russian companies in Russia. When they rip off OUR companies and Russia doesn't care to stop them, it is most certainly the FBI's responsability to do something.
...has said for a long time that in the u.s people don't have freedom and has advised to foreigners to not go to the u.s to work in the computer industry
Seeing as a great deal of posters seem to have trouble getting their heads round this concept...
JUST BECAUSE THIS GUY IS RUSSIAN DOES NOT MEAN HE IS DMITRY SKLYAROV!
Rarely is the question asked, is our slashdotters learning to read?
Yes, both countries have done VERY bad things in the past .
Yes, they both have weapons of mass destruction .
Yes, they will most likely do bad things in the future .
Every country in the World has done it, from the Chinese to the Russians, the mass murders in Rwanda , the machete massacres in the streets of Indonesia, and so on and so on .
The "real" issue here is what is the end game for Saddam, what is his final goal . Let me tell you about something that he has now, and is mass producing .
Botulinum Toxin...
Go punch that into google and see what the CDC has to say about it , or any international medical agency .
It is the single most Toxic substance know on Earth, and there is now proof that Iraq is training Al-qaeda in Bio/Chem warfare, and suspicion that any one else that wants to know it as well .
1 gram in crystal form = 1 million dead .
Feel safe now, standing on your soap box blaring about the evil US and evil Israel .
With an unlimited supply of suicide terrorists and toys like this, we are in a world of $hit . Do you really think it will stop once the US is wiped out, do you think the Islamic radicals will be happy with less than total world conversion to the one true faith ???
The US media is not covering this due to the panic it might cause, only Tony Blair had the BALLS to bring it up to Parliment to try to bolster support for what is about to happen .
The rush, the urgency, the almost blood thirsty appearance of Bush is not one derived of desire of conquest . This is about fear, annihilation, ppl do you even want to hear the weather balloon dispersion scenario ???
I think not...
This is one, ONE weapon he has at his disposal, there are MANY others .
So before you blather on, take a look at the BIG picture, consider what is planned that we don't know, how far would he go, is there even a limit .
Russian Snared By The FBI Sentenced To 3 Years
