The police have no duty to uphold the law or to protect you.
http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/soapbox/48007-fbi-wrec...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
The FBI doesn't get to be sued for a bunch of stuff because they claim sovereign immunity.
It's all fucked up.
It always looks worse when you view it in hindsight. If the FBI had enough evidence to work with then they would have done something. Acting early without the evidence they need would have done more damage and not necessarily stopped anything from happening.
They have no legally enforceable duty to protect...
". a government and its agents are under no general duty to
provide public services, such as police protection, to any
particular individual citizen...
-- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)"It seems it is an American custom nowadays.
My wild guess is that Sabu was not responsible for the idea, but was instructed by his FBI supervisors to just play along and help people with the attack to build up credibility. Meaning - the feds didn't modify the data at all, they probably just used the server to track down the IPs.
Anyway, the fact that Sabu was an informer is surprising to me, a lot. Especially when he was still posting tweets, accusing OTHERS of being informers.
I'd be a little irritated if my credit card number was released while the FBI sat back and watched it happen. I'd be a lot more than irritated if I owned Stratfor, and the FBI sat back and watched some people hack my business. (Yes, Stratfor's security was awful. But it's still a crime.)
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm curious -- why isn't the FBI liable for this sort of thing? Surely there has to be some precedent here one way or the other.