CRIME
Monday, June 4, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
The Russian nation-state and its attempts to control data traffic on electronic networks.
Gafurova Nigora ICP-104
Professor Erickson
Cyberpolitics ICP- 351
May 11, 2007
MLA 6th edition
The Russian nation-state and its attempts to control data traffic on electronic networks.
Introduction:
During the former USSR, flow of information was strictly controlled and those who tried to be curious about the state or its governmental officials had to be punished. Moreover, under Stalin and some other authorities, according to the Rajan, citizens could neither get the secret information about the people in high positions and their outside businesses, nor could they get their personal information from the existing databases. Through decades totalitarianism and shortage of information was accepted by people, nonetheless highly intrusive nature of governmental control over the personal and communal life was not welcomed anymore. Consequently, when most of the countries got independence from Russia, they got to practice democracy, which included human rights and declarations about information transparency and public political participation as voting and elections, people until nowadays do not accept as the best former USSR regime.[1]
Even thought, Russia Federation and so called third world countries do not practice democracy as well as it is comparatively in the United States of America and Europe, there are many considerations on the transparency of information and constitutional overview on some modern obstacles like Internet. Based on an overview, one could see that Russia experienced direct transition from totalitarianism to democracy. Probably we could be suspicious about the governmental officials whether they are liberal or still conservative and better answer some research questions, in order to come to a conclusion about the Russian democratic regime implementation, what are the consequences of introduced transparency information? Why and how does the government have an authority to access any personal information while ordinary citizens are not permitted? Who is in danger the society or businesses (banks…)?
Historical overview:
Rajan, in his article “The Past and Future of Privacy in Russia”, depicts that actually information was not restrict, but vice versa, was used to manipulate so called enemies of the state. Nonetheless, it is stated that information was restricted, journalists could not work independently from the government, and all the articles published in the newspaper had to be reviewed by the party leaders’. Information was the main political power that the party leaders had, “Soviet society was characterized by an information hierarchy, where the politically powerful could command virtually unlimited and freely access to any personal information, while ordinary people were denied even the most basic access to information about themselves”, simply in a family of father, mother and son/daughter there was someone who could claim that his or her mother, father, wife or husband are doing something illegal against the government, means that information was also a key feature for controlling the citizens, their interpersonal, individual and communal lives. [2]
Information Cultivation:
After the collapse of United Soviet Socialist Regime, Russia gave independence to its former republics and got the status of a federation, which was the first step for interrelationship with the United States and Europe. When Russia accepted a democratic regime, it also introduced a new constitution, which called for transparency of the information and free circulation of the information among citizens and the government. Exchange of ideas, magazines and newspapers among countries “promote cultural revitalization in a society that has suffered the stagnating effects of continuous ideological repression… since 1960s.”[3] Moreover, active flow of information between foreign and locally run private small/big businesses brought of no small changes into economic conditions and politics of Russia. Citizens became more engaged into free political expression, and they also became responsible for their rights and laws. Of course, democracy gave freedom for people to access information relative to their personal data, however, appeared need for protecting secret and use of personal data of other people in order to avoid manipulation.
Threat was coming from ordinary citizens, and not from government or firms. In the dialogue between Rajan and some other authors, one could see that Rajan states that there is need for security particularly for businesses and companies, where Norris depicts in the same way and adds that the main danger is ordinary people.[4] As an example to the theories given by Norris and Rajan, Serio and Gorkin in their article, say that Russia is better characterized as a ‘mafia’, because this concept became a traditional way of getting things as well as valuable information, ‘mafia’ exists in clans, organized groups, gangs and in everything that can be bribed or can be called criminal, moreover, they mentioned that Russians are so clever, that even school students have a capability to access inaccessible governmental and businesses information.[5] Louise also argue that the main threat are ordinary citizens with high capabilities “technological skills … ready to sell their services indiscriminately to the highest bidder exacerbate the threat posed by encryption … undermine governments, are a source of potential danger.”[6]Additionally, Eriksson in his article, “A comparative Analysis of Russia and the U.S”, says that in Russia are available only few documents on secret information, nonetheless, they are secured from “social and political polarization of society, organized crime, terrorism…”[7] Consequently, comparative analysis of concepts given by Mira, Norris, Louise, Serio, Gorkin and Eriksson, we could see that the main threat for personal, businesses, and governmental secret information is a society.
Governmental surveillance of information has its expansion on regulatory policies and legislations on cyberspace in Russia, especially considering the recent drift of the Putin regime to a more authoritarian form of governance. With an aim to secure the Russian state, in 2005 Duma prepared a bill to sensor the Internet use, towards this decision Putin recently declared that the censorships will work as for media and radio and for Internet as well.[8] Moreover, in the near spring 2008 the Duma and the president will have elections, probably some citizens of Russia may not accept the surveillance by referring to the regime shift from democratic to authoritarianism, contrary some businesses and organizations that tend to keep their information secret from public but open to government will support the legislation. Moreover, considering the issues of internal and external threats, Russia has already introduced some relevant laws. As far as Judicial Court passed, the bills that claimed to protect privacy of individuals and personal information.
Provisions on Information
Rajan gives us several articles from constitution on privacy and information, which gives us an understanding that the government as in times of communism has more power than ordinary citizens.
First of all Articles from 23 to 25, inform citizens that their life is their privacy, no one can enter to their houses, use their personal information through listening their “telephone conversation, postal, telegraph, and other messages” in order to manipulate them on the basis of their ‘honor and good name’.[9] Of course, in articles 23 and 25 as in U.S and other democratic states, court has a right to break the laws for the sake of justice, but the obstacle is that judiciary branch is under the control of the executive branch, means government can access personal information of ordinary citizens. Moreover, in article 24.1 – no one can enter the person’s house, but government can for the public safety. Other than this, articles under numbers 11 to 13 provide us with provision on information. Articles under numbers 11.1, 11.2 and 23 have particularly similar provisions.
Nonetheless, in articles under numbers 11.5 to 15 say that any individual can come to court against the state authorities.[10] Moreover, any individual can demand all the personal information about himself or herself. In the section on information provision in the articles of the constitution we were able to see that the governmental authorities and their abilities did not change significantly from the time of former Soviet Union, nonetheless, we could observe that the individuals aware of their rights and can demand justice from the side of authorities as well.
Consequences of Information Cultivation
Since, information perfection reached its peak stage, Internet and other software ways of gathering information made the Russian Federation to consider more provisions into their constitution, which are considered in the Criminal Code, Chapter 28 “Computer Information Crimes.”
“Article 272 considers an unauthorized access to computer information, stealing information, money and using some other people’s credit cards or bank accounts.
Article 273. Production, use and spread electronic computer programs like viruses and some other software that can damage other internet user programs.
Article 274. Violation of electronic computer, system or network operating rules is similar to detrimental electronic computer programs.”[11]
Most of the culprits are hackers, in other words, people with professional skills to use detrimental electronic computer programs, access and steal computer information through Internet. Golubev talks about Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and gives us statistic that 13723 computer crimes were committed in Russia last year, through analyzing the Criminal code on computer crimes he suggests that the government should put the information checking technology which should reduce the number of crimes committed.[12] However, if the government will have more privileges to have an access to individuals’ information databases it may use them for its own purposes, which is violating the privacy policy.
Nevertheless, governmental service checking is real and in the case of Internet is not standing aside. Russian KGB has a power to access personal information of other people through the Internet Service Provider. In August 21, 2000, all the ISP’s that refused to provide government with secret information were ordered to close and not work in the area of Russia.[13]
As an example, there is a picture of dial-up internet service provider. In the picture, you can see that the internet connection gives three options and all those three options have an only ISP connection. First can be chosen a service provider that is ISP, second, is an ability to set up a connection manually, but still through ISP, and third is an ability to use CD, which client gets from ISP. Government is able to control the internet in Russia, and it does not give any other options other than ISP connection. On the bases of which, we can strongly argue that the government has still more rights than ordinary citizens and that an ideology of far-left, in other words communist way of ruling the country is not exhausted.
Case Study
“Not so successful was the case of the ILOVEYOU worm.”[14] Between 1999 and 2000 two citizens of Russia, Vasily Gorshkov and Alexey Ivanov, “exploited vulnerability in Windows NT and launched a number of intrusions against Internet Service Providers (ISPs), online banks and e-commerce sites in the United States and online bookmakers in the UK.”[15] These people were able to steal 56,000 credit card numbers and other personal financial information as in U.S and in other countries of the world. Nonetheless, US authorities decided to come up with the problem occurred with the hackers from Russia, but an only obstacle was that between 1999 and 2000, Russia did not have any constitutionality concerning Internet crimes, and certainly, KGB did not cooperate with FBI from U.S.
FBI organizes a story for Gorshkov and Ivanov. In the middle of 2000, both of them are invited to work in U.S with the help of Invita organization. In the agency Gorshkov and Ivanov, show their hacking abilities “against a test network that had been established for the purpose.”[16] Both of the Russian citizens fly to Seattle, where they are interviewed about their computer skills. At the moment when Gorshkov enter his databases in Russia, FBI directly was able to detect their hacking systems and charge them “with a spate of offences including fraud, extortion, and unauthorized computer intrusions.”[17] Consequently Gorshkov was sentenced to three years jail in 2002, and ordered to pay about $US700,000 to companies he had hacked. Ivanov was sent to the East Coast to face further charges and eventually sentenced to four years jail in 2003. [18]
Another story is told by Kirby, she talks about a case with a Russian citizen Sklyarov, who was accused for copyright “Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to create devices designed for pirating software, music or other works”, as in the case of ‘I love you warm’, he was caught by FBI in U.S, but another interesting fact over this case is that Sklyarov found the software, but his employer sold it and there is a dispute, probably it points on that the citizens of Russia are less informed about possible sanctions on the internet and that any inaccurate act may be criminal and it is the fault of Russian government that was not able bring the liberal flow of information control to perfection.
Conclusion:
During the former USSR information was strictly controlled, citizens were under influence of communist party and even did not have an opportunity to access basic personal information about themselves. Totalitarianism in Russia lasted long period of time, and affected individuals as personal, cultural and of course political life, which caused after a short term break for democracy, authoritarianism by the state officials. Even though, Russia is considered to be one of the democratic federations, which gave liberty to people in terms of information use and development, it is convenient to ague that the government has still most of its influence over the legislations in the constitution, which directly manipulate privacy policy of the articles under numbers 11 to 23 of the Russian Federation constitution, which depicts in several articles that the judicial court has an access to secret information and even personal houses of people, but judiciary branch of Russia is appointed by the president, which is incontestable proof of governmental access an control of private information.
Another evidence of full governmental control over personal lives of people is Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) that does not operate independently from government, in order to have an access to the internet any individual, corporations or firms have to be connected to the service provider that means government has an access to the personal and business information. As in the period of former Soviet regime, government has an influence over individual private life and has an ability to control it in a distance, moreover, manipulate them by the information available. Seems that government is breaking the laws of universal declaration, but government has protected itself through the statement of public safety and welfare.
Development of information expansion justifies the governmental internet surveillance. Through decades information acquired more developed forms like Internet and most of the firms, businesses and corporations were first who felt the threat from the ordinary public sight, taking into account clever school students and adults with technological skills, who have good mental capabilities to decode the encrypted information. Based on these issues government of Russia did put surveillance like FBI control over personal or corporate data through Internet Service Provider (ISP) for public well being. While ISP’s are perceived positively from the sight of Internet users it may turn in future again to the totalitarian type of regime, and that information which is controlled again might be used for manipulation as in the former Soviet regime, but there is a probability that the president may not pass 2008 elections and the bill passed by Duma will not be accepted by the newly elected president. Nonetheless, information surveillance in Russia is needed, otherwise ordinary citizens may use an opportunity and like in ‘I Love You warm’ case deter the international safety, which might cause world cyber war and Russia may loose third cyber war, because it is not as developed as U.S, Europe and some parts of Asia.
Work cited:
1. Tim Mendham. A Legal Matter, CSO Online. Date Published: November 7, 2004. Date Accessed: February 10, 2007. http://www.csoonline.com.au
2. Criminal Code of Russia Article 28. Computer Information Crimes. No Date. Date Accessed February 12, 2007. http://www.crime-research.org/library/Criminal_Codes.html
3. International agreements (concerning privacy) signed by Russia. Date Published: February 8, 2007. Date Accessed: February 4, 2007. http://www.hro.org/docs/reps/privacy/2002/eng/int.htm
4. Vladimir Golubev., Fighting cyber crime in CIS: strategy and tactics. Date Published: February 9, 2007. Date Accessed: June 29, 2005. http://www.crime-research.org/articles/golubev_Jul/
5. Carrie Kirby. Accused in copyright case out on bail. Chronicle Staff Writer. Date Published: August 7, 2001. Date Accessed: February 10, 2007. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/08/07/BU139975.DTL&%20type=printable
6. McQuade III, Samuel C. We Must Educate Young People About Cyber crime Before They Start College. Chronicle of Higher Education. Date Published January 5, 2007. Date Accessed March 22, 2007. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23647700&site=ehost-live
7. Rasulev T., A Legal security of International struggle with computer crime. Date Published February 7, 2007. Date Accessed March 20, 2007., http://www.crime-research.ru/articles/rasulev/
8. Shelley, Louise I. "Crime and Corruption in the Digital Age." Journal of International Affairs 51.2 (1998): 605. Questia. No Date Published. Date Accessed April 24, 2007 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001406764\
9. International Herald Tribune. 2007. “'Super agency' threatens Russian freedom” No Data Published. Date accessed March 23, 2007. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/23/opinion/edorttung.php
10. Hardman, Helen. 2005. "(Self-?) Censorship of the Internet in Russia." No Date Published. Date accessed May 10, 2007 http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/cybersafety/extensions/pdfs/papers/helen_hardman.pdf
11. Rajan, Mira T. Sundara 2001. “The Past and Future of Privacy in Russia.” Review of East European Law. No.4, 625 -638
12. Serio, Joseph D. and Alexander Gorkin. 2003. “Changing Lenses: Striving for Sharper Focus on the Nature of the ‘Russian Mafia’’ and its Impact on the Computer Realm.”
13. Eriksson, Johan. “The Framing and the Experience of threats in the Digital Age: A comparative Analysis of Russia and the U.S.” Paper presented in the annual meeting of the International studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2005-02-07 Online 2007-01-06
14. Pippa Norris, Digital Divide, Chapter 6
[1] Vladimir Golubev., Fighting cyber crime in CIS: strategy and tactics. February 9, 2007. June 29, 2005., http://www.crime-research.org/articles/golubev_Jul/
[2] Rajan, Mira T. Sundara 2001 “The Past and Future of Privacy in Russia” Review of East European Law. No.4, 625 -638, p. 625
[3] Ibid, p. 626
[4] Pippa Norris, Digital Divide, Chapter 6
[5] Serio, Joseph D. and Alexander Gorkin. 2003. “Changing Lenses: Striving for Sharper Focus on the Nature of the ‘Russian Mafia’’ and its Impact on the Computer Realm.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. July 2003. 17(2). EBSCO., p 192-201
[6] Shelley, Louise I. "Crime and Corruption in the Digital Age." Journal of International Affairs 51.2 (1998): 605. Questia. No Date Published. Date Accessed 24 Apr. 2007 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001406764\
[7] Eriksson, Johan. “The Framing and the Experience of threats in the Digital Age: A comparative Analysis of Russia and the U.S.” Paper presented in the annual meeting of the International studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2005-02-07 Online 2007-01-06, p. 6
[8] International Herald Tribune. 2007. “'Super agency' threatens Russian freedom” Date accessed March 23, 2007. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/23/opinion/edorttung.php
Hardman, Helen. 2005. "(Self-?) Censorship of the Internet in Russia." http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/cybersafety/extensions/pdfs/papers/helen_hardman.pdf
[9] Rajan, Mira T. Sundara 2001 “The Past and Future of Privacy in Russia” Review of East European Law. No.4, 625 -638, p. 630
[10] Ibid, p. 631
[11] Criminal Code of Russia Article 28., Computer Information Crimes., date retrieved 20.03.2007., http://www.crime-research.org/library/Criminal_Codes.html
[12] Vladimir Golubev., Fighting cyber crime in CIS: strategy and tactics. Date Published: February 9, 2007. Date Accessed: June 29, 2005. http://www.crime-research.org/articles/golubev_Jul/
[13] Rajan, Mira T. Sundara 2001 “The Past and Future of Privacy in Russia” Review of East European Law. No.4, 625 -638, p. 635
[14]A Legal Matter, Tim Mendham, CSO Online. November 7, 2004. February 10, 2007. http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.php/id;696649411;fp;32768;fpid;1629331543
[15] Ibid
[16] A Legal Matter, Tim Mendham, CSO Online. November 7, 2004. February 10, 2007. http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.php/id;696649411;fp;32768;fpid;1629331543
[17] Ibid
[18] Ibid
Professor Erickson
Cyberpolitics ICP- 351
May 11, 2007
MLA 6th edition
The Russian nation-state and its attempts to control data traffic on electronic networks.
Introduction:
During the former USSR, flow of information was strictly controlled and those who tried to be curious about the state or its governmental officials had to be punished. Moreover, under Stalin and some other authorities, according to the Rajan, citizens could neither get the secret information about the people in high positions and their outside businesses, nor could they get their personal information from the existing databases. Through decades totalitarianism and shortage of information was accepted by people, nonetheless highly intrusive nature of governmental control over the personal and communal life was not welcomed anymore. Consequently, when most of the countries got independence from Russia, they got to practice democracy, which included human rights and declarations about information transparency and public political participation as voting and elections, people until nowadays do not accept as the best former USSR regime.[1]
Even thought, Russia Federation and so called third world countries do not practice democracy as well as it is comparatively in the United States of America and Europe, there are many considerations on the transparency of information and constitutional overview on some modern obstacles like Internet. Based on an overview, one could see that Russia experienced direct transition from totalitarianism to democracy. Probably we could be suspicious about the governmental officials whether they are liberal or still conservative and better answer some research questions, in order to come to a conclusion about the Russian democratic regime implementation, what are the consequences of introduced transparency information? Why and how does the government have an authority to access any personal information while ordinary citizens are not permitted? Who is in danger the society or businesses (banks…)?
Historical overview:
Rajan, in his article “The Past and Future of Privacy in Russia”, depicts that actually information was not restrict, but vice versa, was used to manipulate so called enemies of the state. Nonetheless, it is stated that information was restricted, journalists could not work independently from the government, and all the articles published in the newspaper had to be reviewed by the party leaders’. Information was the main political power that the party leaders had, “Soviet society was characterized by an information hierarchy, where the politically powerful could command virtually unlimited and freely access to any personal information, while ordinary people were denied even the most basic access to information about themselves”, simply in a family of father, mother and son/daughter there was someone who could claim that his or her mother, father, wife or husband are doing something illegal against the government, means that information was also a key feature for controlling the citizens, their interpersonal, individual and communal lives. [2]
Information Cultivation:
After the collapse of United Soviet Socialist Regime, Russia gave independence to its former republics and got the status of a federation, which was the first step for interrelationship with the United States and Europe. When Russia accepted a democratic regime, it also introduced a new constitution, which called for transparency of the information and free circulation of the information among citizens and the government. Exchange of ideas, magazines and newspapers among countries “promote cultural revitalization in a society that has suffered the stagnating effects of continuous ideological repression… since 1960s.”[3] Moreover, active flow of information between foreign and locally run private small/big businesses brought of no small changes into economic conditions and politics of Russia. Citizens became more engaged into free political expression, and they also became responsible for their rights and laws. Of course, democracy gave freedom for people to access information relative to their personal data, however, appeared need for protecting secret and use of personal data of other people in order to avoid manipulation.
Threat was coming from ordinary citizens, and not from government or firms. In the dialogue between Rajan and some other authors, one could see that Rajan states that there is need for security particularly for businesses and companies, where Norris depicts in the same way and adds that the main danger is ordinary people.[4] As an example to the theories given by Norris and Rajan, Serio and Gorkin in their article, say that Russia is better characterized as a ‘mafia’, because this concept became a traditional way of getting things as well as valuable information, ‘mafia’ exists in clans, organized groups, gangs and in everything that can be bribed or can be called criminal, moreover, they mentioned that Russians are so clever, that even school students have a capability to access inaccessible governmental and businesses information.[5] Louise also argue that the main threat are ordinary citizens with high capabilities “technological skills … ready to sell their services indiscriminately to the highest bidder exacerbate the threat posed by encryption … undermine governments, are a source of potential danger.”[6]Additionally, Eriksson in his article, “A comparative Analysis of Russia and the U.S”, says that in Russia are available only few documents on secret information, nonetheless, they are secured from “social and political polarization of society, organized crime, terrorism…”[7] Consequently, comparative analysis of concepts given by Mira, Norris, Louise, Serio, Gorkin and Eriksson, we could see that the main threat for personal, businesses, and governmental secret information is a society.
Governmental surveillance of information has its expansion on regulatory policies and legislations on cyberspace in Russia, especially considering the recent drift of the Putin regime to a more authoritarian form of governance. With an aim to secure the Russian state, in 2005 Duma prepared a bill to sensor the Internet use, towards this decision Putin recently declared that the censorships will work as for media and radio and for Internet as well.[8] Moreover, in the near spring 2008 the Duma and the president will have elections, probably some citizens of Russia may not accept the surveillance by referring to the regime shift from democratic to authoritarianism, contrary some businesses and organizations that tend to keep their information secret from public but open to government will support the legislation. Moreover, considering the issues of internal and external threats, Russia has already introduced some relevant laws. As far as Judicial Court passed, the bills that claimed to protect privacy of individuals and personal information.
Provisions on Information
Rajan gives us several articles from constitution on privacy and information, which gives us an understanding that the government as in times of communism has more power than ordinary citizens.
First of all Articles from 23 to 25, inform citizens that their life is their privacy, no one can enter to their houses, use their personal information through listening their “telephone conversation, postal, telegraph, and other messages” in order to manipulate them on the basis of their ‘honor and good name’.[9] Of course, in articles 23 and 25 as in U.S and other democratic states, court has a right to break the laws for the sake of justice, but the obstacle is that judiciary branch is under the control of the executive branch, means government can access personal information of ordinary citizens. Moreover, in article 24.1 – no one can enter the person’s house, but government can for the public safety. Other than this, articles under numbers 11 to 13 provide us with provision on information. Articles under numbers 11.1, 11.2 and 23 have particularly similar provisions.
Nonetheless, in articles under numbers 11.5 to 15 say that any individual can come to court against the state authorities.[10] Moreover, any individual can demand all the personal information about himself or herself. In the section on information provision in the articles of the constitution we were able to see that the governmental authorities and their abilities did not change significantly from the time of former Soviet Union, nonetheless, we could observe that the individuals aware of their rights and can demand justice from the side of authorities as well.
Consequences of Information Cultivation
Since, information perfection reached its peak stage, Internet and other software ways of gathering information made the Russian Federation to consider more provisions into their constitution, which are considered in the Criminal Code, Chapter 28 “Computer Information Crimes.”
“Article 272 considers an unauthorized access to computer information, stealing information, money and using some other people’s credit cards or bank accounts.
Article 273. Production, use and spread electronic computer programs like viruses and some other software that can damage other internet user programs.
Article 274. Violation of electronic computer, system or network operating rules is similar to detrimental electronic computer programs.”[11]
Most of the culprits are hackers, in other words, people with professional skills to use detrimental electronic computer programs, access and steal computer information through Internet. Golubev talks about Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and gives us statistic that 13723 computer crimes were committed in Russia last year, through analyzing the Criminal code on computer crimes he suggests that the government should put the information checking technology which should reduce the number of crimes committed.[12] However, if the government will have more privileges to have an access to individuals’ information databases it may use them for its own purposes, which is violating the privacy policy.
Nevertheless, governmental service checking is real and in the case of Internet is not standing aside. Russian KGB has a power to access personal information of other people through the Internet Service Provider. In August 21, 2000, all the ISP’s that refused to provide government with secret information were ordered to close and not work in the area of Russia.[13]
As an example, there is a picture of dial-up internet service provider. In the picture, you can see that the internet connection gives three options and all those three options have an only ISP connection. First can be chosen a service provider that is ISP, second, is an ability to set up a connection manually, but still through ISP, and third is an ability to use CD, which client gets from ISP. Government is able to control the internet in Russia, and it does not give any other options other than ISP connection. On the bases of which, we can strongly argue that the government has still more rights than ordinary citizens and that an ideology of far-left, in other words communist way of ruling the country is not exhausted.
Case Study
“Not so successful was the case of the ILOVEYOU worm.”[14] Between 1999 and 2000 two citizens of Russia, Vasily Gorshkov and Alexey Ivanov, “exploited vulnerability in Windows NT and launched a number of intrusions against Internet Service Providers (ISPs), online banks and e-commerce sites in the United States and online bookmakers in the UK.”[15] These people were able to steal 56,000 credit card numbers and other personal financial information as in U.S and in other countries of the world. Nonetheless, US authorities decided to come up with the problem occurred with the hackers from Russia, but an only obstacle was that between 1999 and 2000, Russia did not have any constitutionality concerning Internet crimes, and certainly, KGB did not cooperate with FBI from U.S.
FBI organizes a story for Gorshkov and Ivanov. In the middle of 2000, both of them are invited to work in U.S with the help of Invita organization. In the agency Gorshkov and Ivanov, show their hacking abilities “against a test network that had been established for the purpose.”[16] Both of the Russian citizens fly to Seattle, where they are interviewed about their computer skills. At the moment when Gorshkov enter his databases in Russia, FBI directly was able to detect their hacking systems and charge them “with a spate of offences including fraud, extortion, and unauthorized computer intrusions.”[17] Consequently Gorshkov was sentenced to three years jail in 2002, and ordered to pay about $US700,000 to companies he had hacked. Ivanov was sent to the East Coast to face further charges and eventually sentenced to four years jail in 2003. [18]
Another story is told by Kirby, she talks about a case with a Russian citizen Sklyarov, who was accused for copyright “Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to create devices designed for pirating software, music or other works”, as in the case of ‘I love you warm’, he was caught by FBI in U.S, but another interesting fact over this case is that Sklyarov found the software, but his employer sold it and there is a dispute, probably it points on that the citizens of Russia are less informed about possible sanctions on the internet and that any inaccurate act may be criminal and it is the fault of Russian government that was not able bring the liberal flow of information control to perfection.
Conclusion:
During the former USSR information was strictly controlled, citizens were under influence of communist party and even did not have an opportunity to access basic personal information about themselves. Totalitarianism in Russia lasted long period of time, and affected individuals as personal, cultural and of course political life, which caused after a short term break for democracy, authoritarianism by the state officials. Even though, Russia is considered to be one of the democratic federations, which gave liberty to people in terms of information use and development, it is convenient to ague that the government has still most of its influence over the legislations in the constitution, which directly manipulate privacy policy of the articles under numbers 11 to 23 of the Russian Federation constitution, which depicts in several articles that the judicial court has an access to secret information and even personal houses of people, but judiciary branch of Russia is appointed by the president, which is incontestable proof of governmental access an control of private information.
Another evidence of full governmental control over personal lives of people is Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) that does not operate independently from government, in order to have an access to the internet any individual, corporations or firms have to be connected to the service provider that means government has an access to the personal and business information. As in the period of former Soviet regime, government has an influence over individual private life and has an ability to control it in a distance, moreover, manipulate them by the information available. Seems that government is breaking the laws of universal declaration, but government has protected itself through the statement of public safety and welfare.
Development of information expansion justifies the governmental internet surveillance. Through decades information acquired more developed forms like Internet and most of the firms, businesses and corporations were first who felt the threat from the ordinary public sight, taking into account clever school students and adults with technological skills, who have good mental capabilities to decode the encrypted information. Based on these issues government of Russia did put surveillance like FBI control over personal or corporate data through Internet Service Provider (ISP) for public well being. While ISP’s are perceived positively from the sight of Internet users it may turn in future again to the totalitarian type of regime, and that information which is controlled again might be used for manipulation as in the former Soviet regime, but there is a probability that the president may not pass 2008 elections and the bill passed by Duma will not be accepted by the newly elected president. Nonetheless, information surveillance in Russia is needed, otherwise ordinary citizens may use an opportunity and like in ‘I Love You warm’ case deter the international safety, which might cause world cyber war and Russia may loose third cyber war, because it is not as developed as U.S, Europe and some parts of Asia.
Work cited:
1. Tim Mendham. A Legal Matter, CSO Online. Date Published: November 7, 2004. Date Accessed: February 10, 2007. http://www.csoonline.com.au
2. Criminal Code of Russia Article 28. Computer Information Crimes. No Date. Date Accessed February 12, 2007. http://www.crime-research.org/library/Criminal_Codes.html
3. International agreements (concerning privacy) signed by Russia. Date Published: February 8, 2007. Date Accessed: February 4, 2007. http://www.hro.org/docs/reps/privacy/2002/eng/int.htm
4. Vladimir Golubev., Fighting cyber crime in CIS: strategy and tactics. Date Published: February 9, 2007. Date Accessed: June 29, 2005. http://www.crime-research.org/articles/golubev_Jul/
5. Carrie Kirby. Accused in copyright case out on bail. Chronicle Staff Writer. Date Published: August 7, 2001. Date Accessed: February 10, 2007. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/08/07/BU139975.DTL&%20type=printable
6. McQuade III, Samuel C. We Must Educate Young People About Cyber crime Before They Start College. Chronicle of Higher Education. Date Published January 5, 2007. Date Accessed March 22, 2007. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23647700&site=ehost-live
7. Rasulev T., A Legal security of International struggle with computer crime. Date Published February 7, 2007. Date Accessed March 20, 2007., http://www.crime-research.ru/articles/rasulev/
8. Shelley, Louise I. "Crime and Corruption in the Digital Age." Journal of International Affairs 51.2 (1998): 605. Questia. No Date Published. Date Accessed April 24, 2007 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001406764\
9. International Herald Tribune. 2007. “'Super agency' threatens Russian freedom” No Data Published. Date accessed March 23, 2007. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/23/opinion/edorttung.php
10. Hardman, Helen. 2005. "(Self-?) Censorship of the Internet in Russia." No Date Published. Date accessed May 10, 2007 http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/cybersafety/extensions/pdfs/papers/helen_hardman.pdf
11. Rajan, Mira T. Sundara 2001. “The Past and Future of Privacy in Russia.” Review of East European Law. No.4, 625 -638
12. Serio, Joseph D. and Alexander Gorkin. 2003. “Changing Lenses: Striving for Sharper Focus on the Nature of the ‘Russian Mafia’’ and its Impact on the Computer Realm.”
13. Eriksson, Johan. “The Framing and the Experience of threats in the Digital Age: A comparative Analysis of Russia and the U.S.” Paper presented in the annual meeting of the International studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2005-02-07 Online 2007-01-06
14. Pippa Norris, Digital Divide, Chapter 6
[1] Vladimir Golubev., Fighting cyber crime in CIS: strategy and tactics. February 9, 2007. June 29, 2005., http://www.crime-research.org/articles/golubev_Jul/
[2] Rajan, Mira T. Sundara 2001 “The Past and Future of Privacy in Russia” Review of East European Law. No.4, 625 -638, p. 625
[3] Ibid, p. 626
[4] Pippa Norris, Digital Divide, Chapter 6
[5] Serio, Joseph D. and Alexander Gorkin. 2003. “Changing Lenses: Striving for Sharper Focus on the Nature of the ‘Russian Mafia’’ and its Impact on the Computer Realm.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. July 2003. 17(2). EBSCO., p 192-201
[6] Shelley, Louise I. "Crime and Corruption in the Digital Age." Journal of International Affairs 51.2 (1998): 605. Questia. No Date Published. Date Accessed 24 Apr. 2007 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001406764\
[7] Eriksson, Johan. “The Framing and the Experience of threats in the Digital Age: A comparative Analysis of Russia and the U.S.” Paper presented in the annual meeting of the International studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2005-02-07 Online 2007-01-06, p. 6
[8] International Herald Tribune. 2007. “'Super agency' threatens Russian freedom” Date accessed March 23, 2007. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/23/opinion/edorttung.php
Hardman, Helen. 2005. "(Self-?) Censorship of the Internet in Russia." http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/cybersafety/extensions/pdfs/papers/helen_hardman.pdf
[9] Rajan, Mira T. Sundara 2001 “The Past and Future of Privacy in Russia” Review of East European Law. No.4, 625 -638, p. 630
[10] Ibid, p. 631
[11] Criminal Code of Russia Article 28., Computer Information Crimes., date retrieved 20.03.2007., http://www.crime-research.org/library/Criminal_Codes.html
[12] Vladimir Golubev., Fighting cyber crime in CIS: strategy and tactics. Date Published: February 9, 2007. Date Accessed: June 29, 2005. http://www.crime-research.org/articles/golubev_Jul/
[13] Rajan, Mira T. Sundara 2001 “The Past and Future of Privacy in Russia” Review of East European Law. No.4, 625 -638, p. 635
[14]A Legal Matter, Tim Mendham, CSO Online. November 7, 2004. February 10, 2007. http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.php/id;696649411;fp;32768;fpid;1629331543
[15] Ibid
[16] A Legal Matter, Tim Mendham, CSO Online. November 7, 2004. February 10, 2007. http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.php/id;696649411;fp;32768;fpid;1629331543
[17] Ibid
[18] Ibid
Thursday, April 19, 2007
ACLU v. NSA: The Challenge to Illegal Spying
This is debate between state officials and ordinarycitizens. Rajan Mira in his article about Russia, gives same argument should the government control thecitizens, but at the same time this control is violating citizens rights for privacy at the same time on the code it is written that the privacy is a right of people but it can be disrupted by court or governmental officials in case if it is dangarouse for public security. By using this opportunity governmmnet officials may access any personal information which is not very sutisfying. In other side, Norris and Serio they say that actually ordinary citizens are danger for governmnetal security, banks and e.c.t which is a good argument that the governmnet should control and have legitimkacy to access any personal information of ordinary citizens.
It is related to Kyrgyzstan as well because in Kyrgyzstan the coputer criminal code and some other constitutional reviews are similar, but level of crime is less than in Russia.
It is related to Kyrgyzstan as well because in Kyrgyzstan the coputer criminal code and some other constitutional reviews are similar, but level of crime is less than in Russia.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Hacktivists
Mark Milone gives us two different groups, activists and hacktivists, he states that the activists “utilize networked forms of organization, doctrine, and strategy to protect civil liberties and spread democratic values in cyberspace present an invaluable resource in securing these systems.” Means that the activists are giving an opportunity in the web for the internet users get their rights protected and practice democracy. However, hacktivists are discovered to “be provided with the appropriate incentives and protections to encourage coordination with government actors” (Milone, Mark. 2003. "Hacktivism: Security the National Infrastracture." Knowledge, Technology & POlicy. Spring 2003, 16 (1)., March 03, 2007). Activists work on campaigns on the purpose of providing human rights and democracy, where hacktivists work on the same purpose, but use the method of hackers. Hacktivists are able to have an access to the internal secret or codified information of the other countries; for example, it would be useful for Kyrgyzstan to know if any country has a nuclear bomb, which could be a danger for Central Asia, Middle East or some other countries, than hacktivists would useful for government with a good information. To my point of view it is profitable for any democratic government have cooperation with professional hacktivists, as well as hacktivists would have in contact with government more incentives to protection and encouragement. Of course, hacktivists can support democracy, but they by themselves break the human rights of declaration by entering others data or breaking the order of any program with the hacker program about democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
