Vasiliy Gorshkov and Alexey Ivanov

Vasiliy Gorshkov and Alexey Ivanov v. The FBI

There is much controversy with regard to the FBI's involvement in capturing Russian cyber criminals Vasiliy Gorshkov and Alexey Ivanov, taking into account the unorthodox method the bureau used. Many are likely to consider that such actions are against principles associated with law enforcement and that the authorities were wrong in taking on such attitudes. However, when considering the contemporary society being a place where the general public unites against crime, it would be safe to say that the FBI acted on behalf of the whole world at the time when it decided to go through with their plan.

Gorshkov and Ivanov were responsible for having performed a series of illegalities like stealing credit card information, deleting important information on the servers of particular U.S. companies, and attempting to persuade some of these respective companies to hire them in exchange of the data. "Ivanov, as he had done in the case of Speakeasy, identified himself to OIB as the hacker of its computers and demanded a job and money." (Schroeder, 2012, p. xiv) The authorities thus realized that they had the upper hand, taking into account that Ivanov wanted something from them. They used his interest in a job in the U.S. As a tool to lure him and to put an end to his hacking activities.

Computer attacks intensified as Ivanov and Gorshkov became more and more concerned about their condition and as they were determined to do everything in their power in order to come across a firm that would yield to their pressures. The solution to their problems appeared to be Invita, an FBI-created company that actually seemed interested in their services and that was willing to pay for their trip to the U.S. In order to get them to work for it as rapidly as possible. However, after coming to the U.S. And proving that they were indeed capable of hacking an entire company, the two were immediately arrested and charged with a series of cybercrimes.

Police methods involving criminals being lured through diverse concepts that they might have been interested in are old and most law enforcement officers are probably to see nothing wrong with trying to capture a person responsible for having committed illegal activities through such means. The authorities have acknowledged the fact that it is sometimes impossible for them to catch particular criminals and have come to concentrate on doing everything in their power with the purpose of getting offenders behind bars. Some have went as far as to lie in order to achieve their goals, as they wanted to emphasize the fact that there is no place for morality in the contemporary society.

When considering the case involving Gorshkov and Ivanov, it would be safe to say that the authorities believed it would be right for them to lie as long as their lies were for the greater good. The FBI focused on adopting a utilitarian type of thinking in this situation and it decided that it was best for the two criminals to be taken into custody through a trick instead of trying to follow the usual steps associated with capturing a criminal.

The Russian search and seizure role would have applied in this situation, considering the somewhat controversial techniques that the FBI used with the purpose of gathering evidence on the two criminals. However, the fact that they were in the U.S. At the time of the trial meant that the FBI was not limited by Russian search and seizure laws and the fact that the two suspects were non-U.S. citizens meant that they were not eligible to have access to American search and seizure legislations. "In response to the FBI's actions, the Russian Federal Security Service initiated criminal proceedings against FBI agent Michael Schuler, charging him with illegally obtaining information in Russia and for unauthorized access to a Russian computer system." (Ghosh & Turrin, 2010, p. 325)

Many people might categorize behaviors seen in the FBI at the time when Gorshkov and Ivanov were captured as being corrupt. Law enforcement officers are often regarded as individuals who get away with perjury, taking into account that their job involves having to turn a blind eye to crimes they see. Even with this, one would have to gain a more complex understanding of the situation before trying to criticize such behaviors. According to Purpura (1997, p. 178), instructors in police academies encourage recruits to use guile rather than force during crisis intervention, investigations and interrogations, and when dealing with the mentally ill."

The law enforcement subculture as a whole demands that officers have a complex understanding of their position in the social order. As a result of acknowledging the role they play, law enforcement officers come to believe that there is nothing wrong with them trying to trick criminals into being captured. Surely, when discussing this idea in a context involving morality it would seem that law enforcement officers act against principles that they live by. Even with this, one would have to understand that policing has more to do with rational behavior than it has to do with moral attitudes.

To a certain degree, police actions involving lies meant to capture criminals can be regarded as a means-to-an-end type of strategy. The idea of consequentialism is widely appreciated in law enforcement circles because of the benefits it can bring on. This particular idea encourages people to express lesser interest in the actor or in the act, as it emphasizes the outcome of the act as the most important concept. "The popular aphorism that 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' is an example of consequentialism." (Lemieux, 2013)

The U.S. authorities have discovered the fact that they were unable to prosecute many criminals that were known to have access to environments that they could easily exploit. As a consequence, it devised less moral means in an attempt to interact with these respective criminals and to be able to address their crimes similar to how they addressed normal crimes. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is an example of such an act, as actions performed there are obviously illegal. However, the camp's location and the fact that some U.S. laws do not apply there have enabled prosecutors to take on cruel attitudes with regard to interrogation methods.