Why did FBI establish such intense surveillance to prove Jeremy Hammond&#39;s guilt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond Jeremy Hammond was a computer hacker who attacked Stratfor firm. Once FBI was able to pinpoint the real identity of the person behind one of the nicknames who claimed they hacked Startfor, they started extensive investigation on Hammond. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/03/stakeout-how-the-fbi-tracked-and-busted-a-chicago-anon/ While sup_g may indeed have been a &quot;credible threat,&quot; he was in the end no match for the overwhelming federal resources of the FBI agents hunting him down. Over the last month, federal agents staked out his home in Chicago constantly, dug up old police surveillance records, tapped his Internet connection, used directional wireless finders to locate and identify his wireless router, and relied on Sabu back in his New York City apartment to let them know when sup_g went on or offline. &quot;sup_g&quot; was one of Hammond's nicknames. Why would FBI go to such great lengths if they already revealed the identity of the perpetrator? Why FBI considered it not enough to correlate an Internet nickname to a physical person? If they required evidence, why did they just not search Hammond's computers after making sure one of aliases that claimed to have hacked Startfor is indeed Jeremy Hammond?
The cited Wikipedia article explains why the FBI took the case so seriously, and in a serious case, the FBI is meticulous about being able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt on all possible charges. It also didn't know what other crimes or conspiracies might be involved and needed to be able to prosecute any newly discovered offenses. The Wikipedia article notes, in the pertinent part: On March 5, 2012, Hammond was arrested by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents in the Bridgeport neighborhood of Chicago for his involvement in the December 2011 cyberattack on Stratfor, a private intelligence firm. The intrusion compromised 60,000 credit card numbers, $700,000 in fraudulent charges, and involved the download of 5 million emails, some of which were subsequently published by WikiLeaks. . . . He was one of six individuals from the United States, England and Ireland indicted. The FBI was led to Hammond through information given by computer hacker Hector Xavier Monsegur (&quot;Sabu&quot;), who became a government informant immediately after his arrest in early 2011, and subsequently pleaded guilty in August 2011 to twelve counts of hacking, fraud, and identity theft. . . . Information from Monsegur helped lead the authorities to at least eight co-conspirators, including Hammond, and helped to disrupt at least 300 cyberattacks. . . . Sabu was detained pending trial; in denying bail, Judge Loretta A. Preska described Hammond as &quot;a very substantial danger to the community.&quot; . . . In May 2013, Hammond pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Upon his guilty plea, Hammond issued a statement saying, &quot;I did work with Anonymous to hack Stratfor, among other websites&quot; . . . Hammond was sentenced on November 15, 2013, to the maximum of ten years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.
Potentially, yes - especially if its the government you lie to in your CV/resume or course of work. Wayne Simmons, a regular Fox News commentator who claimed to have worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for almost three decades, was arrested on Thursday for allegedly fabricating his agency experience. CNN Money reports that Simmons appeared in court on Thursday, where he faced charges of major fraud against the United States for falsely claiming to be a former “outside paramilitary special operations officer”—a padded resume that federal officials say he used to successfully gain government security clearances. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/wayne-simmons-cia-arrested-fox-news/ Simmons claimed to have been an &quot;outside paramilitary special operations officer&quot; for the CIA from 1973 to 2000. Not only did he use that claim to get guest appearances on Fox News, but the government claims he used it to gain security clearances and a defense contractor gig that included advising senior military personnel overseas. He's now being charged with wire fraud, major fraud against the United States, and making false statements to the government and could face 35 years in prison. https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2015/10/can-you-get-arrested-for-lying-on-your-resume.html Making false or fraudulent statements also may be punishable by fine or imprisonment. https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/working-in-government/fair-and-transparent/signature-false-statements/
Surely such a well meaning albeit naive driver wouldn't stand a chance in court if they said that it's because they've a section 230-like protection. Because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act explicitly protects computer service providers from such charges. A driver is not a computer service provider, and the US legislature has never voted to offer similar protection to drivers picking up hitchhikers. You say that an email can easily be classified as fraudulent, but that's not true. Spam detection has gotten pretty sophisticated, but they still get plenty of false positives. They were a lot less sophisticated back in 1996 when the Communications Decency Act was passed.
This question needs more detail. As a cybersecurity professional I can provide some technical context around what I believe to be the situation. While I do not know the legal precedence, technically, IP addresses cannot typically be attributed to an individual person. There are a number of reasons for this. In a local network, IP addresses are not unique. Rather, they are distributed by the DHCP server, and are reassigned at intervals. Forensic attribution to an individual in most environments would require a DHCP log linking the IP to the machine’s MAC address, with time stamps that correlate to the individual’s logon to that machine at the same time. If the IP correlation involves a VPN, it gets more difficult. I would need to know where the log/evidence was obtained to determine what the IPs in question actually correlate to. If the evidence was obtained in local area network of the suspect, the IP addresses are likely assigned by the DHCP server (see previous). If they are obtained after encryption in transit to decryption, then very little can be determined. If they were obtained at the VPN server log, these IPs likely belong to an ISP which in turn may or may not be able to show what machine initiated the conversation. Digital photos often contain EXIF data, which is metadata about the photo. This data can contain details like, device make and model, sometimes location, time and date... If the defendant owns a Nikon such and such and the photo was taken with a Nikon such and such, and was uploaded using a VPN the defendant has an account with, and the defendant was in that location at the time and place of the photo... there may be enough there... but I’m not a lawyer. I believe the discovery should include any EXIF metadata and logs to be used as evidence. You may need a special technical whiteness to educate the court on what can and cannot be determined (technically) given the evidence. Things to consider for such a witness could include: EXIF, forensic certification, network administration experience, VPN, TCPIP, OSI Model, Network Address Translation (NAT). Again, nothing here should be considered legal advise. Seek professional legal counsel.
Most secret service details are protection for heads of government/state and thus their details would be afforded Sovereign Immunity (Such as POTUS, VPOTUS, and First and Second Families) OR Diplomatic Immunity (visiting dignitaries and leaders of other nations). Typically there are more diplomatic ways to handle the cases in the latter. In the former case, thus far, it has not been handled. During visits, the traditional Executives and Families are usually closely guarded by the Service with additional law enforcement form local jurisdictions called in to aid in the protection, usually to secure routes the Motorcade will take to a designation (I speak from personal experience, POTUS coming to town is a nightmare on traffic). If they are speeding, they are typically doing so down a completely empty highway with police escort. From this point, most under of the Service would be monitored and controlled so closely, at least one Agent would notice if any protected was committing a crime and would have to write it up in a report. There is also considerable debate in legal circles if the President and Vice President could be arrested for a crime while in office, with the general acceptance being that they could not and would need to be impeached by congress. Secret Service will continue to protect former Presidents and Vice Presidents for life, along with their spouses and children up to a certain age. With all that in mind, it would not so much be that the Secret Service would prevent arrest of an individual under their protection so much as the Secret Service would be the arresting authority. As they are law enforcement agents under the Federal Government, they can legally arrest people and then hand them to the proper law enforcement agency to effect the arrest. This would mostly happen with candidates for office OR former presidents OR family at any point in time as the scenario described is a bit harder to make a legitimate arrest. In fact, the Secret Service does have arrest authority with one of the highest conviction rates of any Law Enforcement Agency in the Country. It's just most crimes they arrest have nothing to do with threats to those under their protection. The Secret Service is also charged with investigation of counterfeiting of US currency and they are very good at it. This was actually their original sole function in the U.S. government and they still exist under the Treasury Department to this day. At this point, if you're wondering how they got the job of protecting important people in the executive branch from that, well, it's simple. At the time of his assasination, the legislation to create the USSS was on Licoln's desk. At the time of their creation, the only other Federal Police services were the U.S. Park Police, the Postal Inspection Service, and the U.S. Marshals. The first two had specific jurisdictions and the Marshals were undermanned so the USSS was tasked with investigating all sorts of financial crimes and quickly became the most successful U.S. Law Enforcement Service. They were also the first U.S. Intelligence and Counterintelligence agency (though they no longer are part of the Intelligence Community) until the FBI took on those duties. So following the Assassination of William McKinley in 1901, Congress authorized them to take up full time Presidential Protection because at the time, they were pretty much doing everything else.
I will address only the legal issues. Prosecutors for very good public policy reasons are not required to prosecute every crime they have suspicions about. When exercising this discretion they consider: Is the act, in fact, criminal - many of the things you list, while reprehensible, unethical, and possibly immoral are not actually criminal. Do they have the resources (time, staff, money) to collect the evidence and run this case as opposed to the thousands of other crimes out there. There are always more crimes than can be prosecuted and these have to be prioritised in some way. Do they have enough evidence to gain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. People can be fired or resign on suspicion, they can't be convicted on it.
This isn't strictly a legal question, but there are many reasons that a police force might delay. These include, but are not limited to: The case is a low priority so resources are devoted elsewhere, and no one ever gets back around to dealing with it. The case may implicate another ongoing undercover operation which the arrest would disrupt. It is likely that if the police wait that they will be able to bring much more serious charges, when the conduct they have evidence for is not as serious if they wait and monitor the suspect for future criminal conduct or leads to more serious past conduct. For example, the police may only have evidence of a single incident of harassment but may think that if they wait and watch that they may get evidence of extortion or attempted murder. There is a concern that prosecuting immediately would lead to community uproar that would undermine community safety or impair police operations generally. In the same vein, public opinion might produce a tainted or unfavorable jury if charges were pressed now, but the jury might be less likely to have pre-existing opinions or to consider the case a hot button issue once publicity around an incident has died off. The police may intentionally be exercising discretion not to press charges because it seems unjust to do so, or the perpetrator had some justification, or otherwise deserves a second chance. Pre-charge negotiations might be ongoing between prosecutors and defense counsel. The perpetrator already faces more serious charges that are highly likely to result in his incarceration and the new charges would be served concurrently and not add to his sentence, so pressing charges is not a priority. There are doubts about the sufficiency of the evidence or there is a belief that more evidence may be obtained soon (and nobody bothers to check back and try to press the case when that potential lead doesn't pan out). A modest delay in pressing charges for any number of reasons causes a witness to become unavailable or evidence to be lost. Generally speaking, law enforcement has wide discretion to decide which cases to focus on and try to have prosecuted, and which cases the leave be. No law enforcement agency has the resources to prosecute (with prosecuting attorney assistance) every possible case that they could prove.
So my answer depends heavily on a clarification. Are the Police Suspicious or do they have a warrant? This is a big difference in the two behaviors as the former is not a thing, from a strictly legal perspective, and the police should not be harrassing Bob, who doesn't want to talk to them, when they should be making calls to get a warrant (If the police think Bob is being disorderly, they will arrest him and Bob should zip it, get an attorney down to the station, and let the Lawyer yell at the cops... and the judge... and the prosecutor and whoever else... If it's the latter case, they don't need to ask Bob to have Bob come outside... they can kick in the door and arrest Bob or remove him as part of executing the warrant. That's why you have them. In the situation as described, it reads like there was some crime in the area and the police think Bob may have some knowledge about it (he need not have done it, they could be looking for a witness). Bob does not have to say anything to the cops as per his rights against self-incrimination, so Bob tells them he does not wish to speak to them, possibly in an irksome manner and the Police won't take no for an answer. Perhaps they really think Bob might be the criminal... this doesn't necessary mean they have evidence to arrest Bob on. Perhaps Bob was identified by a guy off of security camera footage... maybe it was Bob, or maybe it was Bob's evil twin he never knew about and Bob's been home all night Keeping Up With The Kardassians (anyone knows Bob knows he can't stand going a week without knowing what Kim and Kanye are doing). Either way, it could be enough for a search warrant but just wanting to talk without a warrant, Bob can refuse and they need to respect that. Again, it's probably a bad faith arrest, but the street is not the place to have that fight... save it for the courts.