The Legitimacy of the FBIs Response to International Computer Crimes - Case Study Example

The Legitimacy of the FBI’s Response to International Computer Crimes The era of the Internet and the potential and exhibition of Internet related crime has greatly redefined the way in which criminality is punished and the boundaries of geography for where a particular crime was committed; as opposed to where it can be punished are determined. Accordingly, the growth and electronic crimes and the means by which hackers and other such criminals are able to engage in their crimes from the safety of many hundreds if not thousands of miles away has created a demand for a legal precedent that would encourage a level of culpability for individuals that might not otherwise be punished for the crimes they are accused. However, by much the same token, individual analysts have pointed to a dangerous slippery slope that is currently developing with respect to the way in which prosecution of criminals that are afforded international due process is currently occurring at a rate that appears to erode certain civil liberties that have long been accepted and practice. A particular case that helps to exhibit this dynamic, and one that will be analyzed at length within this brief analysis, is with respect to the way in which agents of the Federal Bureau of investigations (FBI) lured to Russian nationals to New York; seemingly as a function of going on a job interview. As these individuals saw this lucrative offer as a potentially beneficial step in the right direction, both of them travel to the United States and attempted to interview for the job in question. As might be expected, the Federal Bureau of investigations, as well as other requisite federal agencies, quickly apprehended them upon their arrival in the United States and charged them with hacking crimes that had been conducted against United States businesses during the late 1990s. Additionally, research into the case illustrates that the United States was also responsible for downloading information concerning their crimes from computers that were physically located within the Russian Federation (Gomes & Bridis, 2001). As a function of this particular analysis, the author will see to answer the question of legal legitimacy and whether or not the FBI violated international or domestic law in the course of this “sting operation”. Firstly, it should be understood that the Federal Bureau of investigations ultimately treated this particular crime as if it had originated, then directed, and ultimately impacted individuals within the United States. Whereas it is true that it was directed that the United States and ultimately impacting businesses within the United States, it did not originate within the United States. As such, rather than treating the crime as a domestic crime, and one in which a sting operation could be conducted, the Federal Bureau of investigation step outside the legal confines of international law and sought to lower both of these international actors into the United States. Furthermore, Russian domestic law dictates that any individual accused of a crime, specifically a citizen of the Russian Federation, must necessarily have evidence of the crime forwarded to prosecutorial agencies within the Russian government. Furthermore, as the Russian Federation did not have an extradition treaty with the United States, the punishment for the crime would necessarily have been determined within the Russian Federation; albeit providing the requisite amount of evidence could be secured and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt determined. Yet, due to the fact that the Federal Bureau of investigations deemed such a likelihood as nearly impossible, they chose to circumvent both international and Russian law and to lure these two hackers into the United States. In addition to the fact that this particular process broke both international law as well as the law of the Russian Federation, agents for the FBI also illegally hacked into computers that were located geographically within the Russian Federation itself. As such, the FBI and its partners were responsible for the very much the same crime that the two Russian citizens were arrested for within the United States; namely computer hacking. As the information that was obtained for the arrest warrant and subsequent evidence utilized within the trial was obtained illegally, specifically with respect to international law, many individuals, inclusive of this particular author, believe that the case should have been dismissed outright. Whereas it is true that it is likely these individuals are responsible for financial crimes and hacking, seeking to punish them without you international process and committing international crime as a function of deriving valuable evidence is not permissible in any extent whatsoever. Yet, it must be understood that the information which has thus far been represented is mostly contingent upon international law and the means by which the FBI acted outside of these parameters. However, in terms of domestic law and current US cyber security, the FBI was acting within the law. Nevertheless, this serves as nothing more than an interesting side; due to the fact that the FBI ultimately utilized domestic practices as a function of snaring and prosecuting international criminals. Moreover, the lessons that the FBI, and the United States by extension, should have drawn from this case have not necessarily been learned. As recently as 2011, the United States, in tandem with New Zealand authorities, arrested KimDot Com man attempts to prosecute this individual for breach of copyright law; supposedly in reference to his file sharing website (Bowman, 2014). However, after a particularly brilliant legal Defense and the fact that the requisite paperwork for administering the arrest warrant was fundamentally flawed, the case against cam ultimately fell apart. Nevertheless, assets, property, money, and valuable time of this individual’s life was lost as a function of a fundamentally flawed, biased, and illegal international arrest for an individual that had not ultimately committed any crime within the United States. Sadly, as can be seen from the above example, in tandem with the discussion of the case involving the two Russian citizens, the United States and its legal system has learned relatively little with respect to the way in which international electronic crimes should be punished (Moscaritolo, 2012). A far more effective approach would invariably be to ensure that individuals that have violated in the national law, or US law, should have their representative governments contacted and proper proceedings against them fulfilled. However, due to the fact that the United States legal system continually attempts to “go it alone”, the efficacy of the way in which such crimes are punished and the overall outcome for the individuals associated with these crimes is oftentimes much less than should be desired. From even a cursory understanding of the law, it is clear and apparent that the desire of the prosecuting entity is to at least ensure that some level of culpability is established and punishment meted out towards the individual responsible for the aforementioned crime or crimes. However, as a result of the shortsighted and myopic approach to the enforcement of electronics crimes and arrest that the United States has chosen to engage, the effectiveness of the strategy, in tandem with the precedent that it sets, leaves much to be desired. In the future, if the United States continues to further this particular level of engagement with those individuals accused of electronic crimes, it will not serve as a discouragement for other individuals to not follow similar steps. In both the case of Kim Dot Com and the case of the two Russian criminals that have been referenced earlier within this analysis, the overall prosecutorial and corporal punishment that were directed at these individuals were minimal; due to the fact that the United States government was unable to craft an effective and well reasoned case against them utilizing both domestic and international law. References BOWMAN, M. (2014). Simon Denny: The Personal Effects of Kim Dotcom. Art Monthly, (376), 28-29. Gomes, L., & Bridis, T. (2001, March 9). FBI Warns of Russian Hackers Stealing U.S. Credit-Card Data. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition. p. A4. Moscaritolo, A. (2012). Facing Extradition, Megaupload's Kim Dotcom Hosts Pool Party. PC Magazine, 1. Read More