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)