The FBI's tactics in this case involving two Russian hackers, Vasiliy Gorshkov and Alexey Ivanov, were both legal and appropriate in light of the circumstances. Furthermore, the use of deception to entice the two hackers showed that US law enforcement officials were eager to use whatever means available to them in the face of these apparent security threats. According to court documents, the two people were Russian cyber crime kingpins who broke into the networks of over 40 US firms with the purpose of extorting money from them (Brunker, 2000). The two men were formidable criminals who were victimizing American companies through the internet. By using the computers, they could hack into a company's sensitive information and hold it for ransom. Going after them through trickery is a legally supported move that claims that bad knows bad that is the only way the FBI could have captured the elusive criminals was engaging in the same trickery and subterfuge as the criminals. A fair fight especially involving cyber-crime is almost a losing battle for the law enforcement agencies. This is because, through the internet, the criminals and especially experienced ones such as Vasiliy Gorshkov and Alexey Ivanov could easily conceal their actions as well as their identities by using aliases in the vastness of the global internet.
The uproar by the public and the interest groups concerning FBI's role and actions, in this case, asserted that the law enforcement agency acted in a manner that was unlawful. According to the filings by the court, both the FBI and the DOJ tricked the two Russian hackers with a fictitious job offer in a security firm in Seattle. While at the firm the FBI requested the two suspects to crack the firm's own security. While the two suspects were cracking the security of the firm the FBI using a sniffer program were monitoring their activities and their apparent connection to the two servers in Russia where hacking had been perpetrated. The sniffer program collected the passwords and usernames of the hackers which the FBI used to access their accounts thus obtaining data from these servers that incriminated the two Russian suspects (Lemos, 2002).
Another concern for the critics of the FBI, in this case, was that the FBI had entrapped the two hackers. As much as it was true that these hackers were waging terror and victimization upon the American firms by engaging in fraud, extortion, and conspiracy, they were still young men who were only looking for a better life. Alexey Ivanov was just 20, and Vasiliy Gorshkov was just 25 years old (Lemos, 2002). The FBI were accused of entrapment by luring the hackers from their hiding places by promising them a better life. A promise of a lucrative job in America was a big lure especially to Ivanov who used to hack from an abandoned factory in Chelyabinsk. The conditions in this part of the world are not conducive as such given that the town has been hit twice by a nuclear catastrophe which makes the town one the most polluted cities in the world (Koerner, 2002). Life hardships are not licenses to commit a crime, but such is the life in Chelyabinsk that it is not an easy thing to get a job which explains how the two suspects resulted to hacking and could not think twice about an offer out of the blue to work in the United States. For this reason, therefore, many people felt that the two young men led to entrapment by the FBI which is illegal. However, such a deduction and conclusion is uninformed and represents a narrow interpretation of the law. In the age where cyber-crimes have become one of the biggest crimes in the world luring of these criminals from their hiding places is essential and could be the only way. Any other means of capturing the criminals such as going by the books would have been lengthy due to diplomatic issues and could have tipped the criminals who would have reacted by covering their tracks and further going into hiding. The move by the FBI agents was both clever and tactful given the circumstances.
Did the FBI act under the color of any international laws or compacts, or did they "go off the reservation?
Where there is an absence of a universal criminal jurisdiction, there is an establishment that only the country whose criminal law has been violated may try the violator. Securing the presence of such an individual may be by way of unlawful extraction either by kidnapping or enticing him to come to the state where he will be prosecuted for his crimes (Williams, 1975). Due to the universal compact, the FBI "went off the reservation." The enticement of the two Russian hackers for prosecution in the United States by the American Agents was a violation of the conventional international law. In this case, the luring of the two hackers from their hiding places in Russia was a violation of the territorial sovereignty of the state of refuge. However, the principles of the same universal compact offer the right to fight all forms of corruption including extortion and bribery. Also, during the prosecution the method that was used to bring the accused in the state of prosecution does not affect the judges' jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary hearing and as such the accused can still be tried and jailed (Williams, 1975).
Do the FBI's actions stand up to scrutiny under current US cyber laws
The United States has put a lot of efforts in the fight against cyber-crimes both resource-wise and policy making. Over the past years, there have been numerous bills and substantives laws whose main aims is to combat crimes perpetrated through identity theft, hacking, computer system intrusion, child pornography, intellectual property and online gambling. Under the current US cyber laws, the FBI actions with relation to the case involving the Russian hacker would stand up to scrutiny. The United States lawmakers passed several laws that grant the law enforcement agencies certain privileges to aid in the investigations of cyber-crimes. One such law is the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (CEA). CEA empowers the National Institute of Standards and Technology to use whichever means necessary to combat cyber risks and improve cybersecurity (Dahl, 2015). The actions of the FBI in such a provision would be shielded by this Act making them lawful.
Have there been other, more recent examples of cases in which US law enforcement targeted non-US citizens in a similar manner?
Yes, there have been recent examples of cases in which US law enforcement has targeted non-US citizens. One such example is the indictment of two persons from Latvia by the Department of Justice and the FBI on June 22, 2011 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2011). The operation led to the seizure of not less than 40 computers, servers, and bank accounts. This operation was part of the international law enforcement action against cybercrime and more specifically the commercial sale of a fraudulent computer security software – the scareware. This software falsely indicates threats affecting computers which compel users to purchase antivirus software to repair their computers (U.S. Department of Justice, 2011). The users end up giving up their credit card details through a series of tedious and confusing process of acquiring the antivirus. The credit card details are used to defraud the users by the criminals.
What, if any, are the positive or negative impacts of this case on subsequent cyber-crime investigations?
The actions of the FBI, in this case, were subject to legal interpretation. Should the actions of the FBI be determined to be lawful, multiple individuals and parties were concerned about the repercussions it would have on cyber security. For instance, if the courts declared the actions of the FBI to be lawful, such a ruling would be used in future as a precedent allowing law enforcement agencies to hack foreign computers freely. Such a ruling would also provide a legal platform for other countries to break into computers in the United States under the pretense of investigative data search (Lemos, 2002). These consequences are formidable ones that could create a disorder not only for America cyber security but the entire international cyber security. However, the way the FBI carried out the investigation can be used as an incentive for law enforcement agencies to send the message to the cyber criminals that the law enforcement agencies are prepared to do anything to combat cybercrime. It can also be used as a basis for creating exception laws when it comes to capturing criminals and therefore making the cybercrime laws flexible enough to fit situations that otherwise can easily slip out of the hands of the law enforcement agencies should due process be applied.
References
Brunker, M. (2000, August 15). FBI agent charged with hacking - News - Internet Underground | NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3078784
Dahl, M. (2015, January 23). Understanding the New Federal Cyber Laws | 2015-01-23 | Security Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/86057-understanding-the-new-federal-cyber-laws
Koerner, B. I. (2002, June). Legal Affairs. Retrieved from https://legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2002/feature_koerner_mayjun2002.msp
Lemos, R. (2002, March 28). FBI "hack" raises global security concerns - CNET. Retrieved from https://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-hack-raises-global-security-concerns/
U.S. Department of Justice. (2011, June 22). FBI — Department of Justice Disrupts International Cyber Crime Rings Distributing Scareware. Retrieved from https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/pressrel/press-releases/department-of-justice-disrupts-international-cybercrime-rings-distributing-scareware
Williams, S. A. (1975). Criminal Law--Jurisdiction--Illegal Arrest--Due Process--Violation of International Law.
We will email this sample to you with pleasure!
Type your email