Yeah it's a commonly held misconception spanning decades that cops must identify themselves if asked. I wonder where it originated. Needs some sunlight like:

  Badger: "Prove you're not a cop."
  ...
  Undercover cop: "If you ask a cop if he's a cop, he's like... obligated to tell you -- it's in the Constitution."

- Breaking Bad, Season 2, Episode 8, moments before Badger gets arrested

I don’t think the server notices were based on this assumption. They were trying to use the draconian cyber security laws instituted after Mitnick and others got caught, which stipulated 10 years jail time for “unauthorised access to a computer system.”

The ones I saw, for the most part, predated Mitnick's arrest. Some by many years.

(Blah, I'm old)

Huh, I just kind of assumed they were related since the whole moral panic over "hacking" was about the same time (or, in hindsight, the same time I started using telnet... I'm less old but still quite old. :P )

Not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt any prosecutor would bring a criminal case against a law enforcement officer whose access to a system was denied for being a law enforcement officer, and while there are some situations where one can make a civil claim under the CFAA, what legitimate damages could you show that an officer caused you by accessing your site in the furtherance of their duty? If someone actually tried to sue for this, it would be a very interesting case indeed.

It’s not about bringing a criminal case, it’s about being able to say “this evidence was gathered illegally” if it was gathered without a warrant, then having the evidence thrown out.

A defense lawyer may give something like that a shot at least.

I have no idea if it would work in practice of course.

> it's a commonly held misconception spanning decades that cops must identify themselves if asked. I wonder where it originated.

Perhaps it comes from some of the loose laws that require police to make some attempt to announce themselves and their purpose in specific situations (i.e. when executing a search warrant where they don't have reason to believe announcing themselves would pose a risk to their well being)

This reminded _SWIM_ of another artifact of netizen legalese. Some forums were almost hysterical as nobody ever did or experienced anything ever. There was only frequent hearsay about "Someone who [wasn't] me".

I hope SWIM is still in good health, despite everything they've been through.

Would be interesting to know if saying SWIM did, or didn't, save someone from unwanted legal attention at some point.

The modern equivalent is using copyright material/music in a video and then putting "I make no claim on the copyright of the music in these videos" in the description thinking that's a pass

Total guess: I assume they could claim unauthorized access to a computer system under the CFAA.

I’m fairly sure that the police can’t hack a random server then claim “I’m a cop so it’s okay” without a warrant. At the very least any evidence gathered may be deemed inadmissible. Accessing a system without permission may, I guess, fall in the same bucket.

But nothing prevents a law enforcement officer from hiring someone who's already on the inside.

Some of these user agreements tried to cover that too ("you are not an officer, nor employed by one, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be"). It was cute.