5 ms·

Here's an investigative tool the CFAA & the FBI needs... if a company like Patterson Dental spins up an investigative raid with a baseless complaint, the Bureau

by rrggrr 10y ago

Here's an investigative tool the CFAA & the FBI needs... if a company like Patterson Dental spins up an investigative raid with a baseless complaint, the Bureau should be able to charge them with a crime. One almost hopes the FBI investigation yields enough evidence to charge Patterson with a criminal violation of HIPAA.

a3n 10y ago
Why would the FBI and prosecutors punish Patterson? The gave the FBI an opportunity for raids and prosecutions, and those look great on an annual review.
- rrggrr 10y ago
  Field offices don't have unlimited budgets. If it turns out this raid was unjustified - and it certainly appears to be - its not going to reflect positively on the people who caused it.
  - tobltobs 10y ago
    That would make me even more nervous, because if they would find some childprn it would have been justified.
    - rrggrr 10y ago
      You are being paranoid. There are over 13,000 FBI agents but probably 5x that number are needed to deal with organized crime, white collar crime, national security threats, public corruption, background investigations and other cases within their jurisdiction. You can bet there were/are a few agents shaking their heads in irritation over what appears to be a waste of resources.
      - tobltobs 10y ago
        That is even more reason for those FBI agents in charge to find something else to legitimate this waste of resources. For a real life example how this works you might google "FBI Keith Gartenlaub"
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        This seems like bullshit. It would have been easy to determine ahead of time that Shafer is not a threat to evade arrest, destroy evidence, or harm agents. Based on that, it would have been easy to interrupt Shafer as he headed to his car to drive to work, explain to him his situation, and have him call his wife and ask her to take the children and walk down to the park for an hour. Next time FBI want to harass a citizen like this, they should leave the assault weapons at home. The public would certainly be safer and happier if there were fewer FBI agents rather than more.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Why would the FBI and prosecutors punish Patterson? The gave the FBI an opportunity for raids and prosecutions, and those look great on an annual review. Why go after Patterson? Because that would give them opportunities for more raids and prosecutions, which look great on an annual review. And raids and prosecutions for acts which are probably more politically useful to politically-minded US Attorneys than whatever kind of case they could make against Shafer.
  - a3n 10y ago
    True. But given the choice between the two (and they clearly had this choice), I wonder if they consider that an individual will not be able to mount as strong a defense as a business.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > But given the choice between the two (and they clearly had this choice) That's less clear than it might seem; the information Patterson gave them may have been sufficient basis for probable cause against Shafer, but it was probably shaded (at least by omission) in a way that it did not do so against Patterson. Now, obviously, one would hope that the FBI would do some meaningful additional investigation before conducting a raid, but there were very few people beside the person they'd been handed as a subject who would have been able to provide information which would have flipped this to something where Patterson would be the offending party (and even there, its for something which the FBI is neither the usual first investigating agency nor an agency that is particularly expert.)

by rrggrr 10y ago

a3n 10y ago

Why would the FBI and prosecutors punish Patterson? The gave the FBI an opportunity for raids and prosecutions, and those look great on an annual review.

rrggrr 10y ago
Field offices don't have unlimited budgets. If it turns out this raid was unjustified - and it certainly appears to be - its not going to reflect positively on the people who caused it.
- tobltobs 10y ago
  That would make me even more nervous, because if they would find some childprn it would have been justified.
  - rrggrr 10y ago
    You are being paranoid. There are over 13,000 FBI agents but probably 5x that number are needed to deal with organized crime, white collar crime, national security threats, public corruption, background investigations and other cases within their jurisdiction. You can bet there were/are a few agents shaking their heads in irritation over what appears to be a waste of resources.
    - tobltobs 10y ago
      That is even more reason for those FBI agents in charge to find something else to legitimate this waste of resources. For a real life example how this works you might google "FBI Keith Gartenlaub"
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      This seems like bullshit. It would have been easy to determine ahead of time that Shafer is not a threat to evade arrest, destroy evidence, or harm agents. Based on that, it would have been easy to interrupt Shafer as he headed to his car to drive to work, explain to him his situation, and have him call his wife and ask her to take the children and walk down to the park for an hour. Next time FBI want to harass a citizen like this, they should leave the assault weapons at home. The public would certainly be safer and happier if there were fewer FBI agents rather than more.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Why would the FBI and prosecutors punish Patterson? The gave the FBI an opportunity for raids and prosecutions, and those look great on an annual review. Why go after Patterson? Because that would give them opportunities for more raids and prosecutions, which look great on an annual review. And raids and prosecutions for acts which are probably more politically useful to politically-minded US Attorneys than whatever kind of case they could make against Shafer.
- a3n 10y ago
  True. But given the choice between the two (and they clearly had this choice), I wonder if they consider that an individual will not be able to mount as strong a defense as a business.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > But given the choice between the two (and they clearly had this choice) That's less clear than it might seem; the information Patterson gave them may have been sufficient basis for probable cause against Shafer, but it was probably shaded (at least by omission) in a way that it did not do so against Patterson. Now, obviously, one would hope that the FBI would do some meaningful additional investigation before conducting a raid, but there were very few people beside the person they'd been handed as a subject who would have been able to provide information which would have flipped this to something where Patterson would be the offending party (and even there, its for something which the FBI is neither the usual first investigating agency nor an agency that is particularly expert.)