evidence investigation
Why did FBI establish such intense surveillance to prove Jeremy Hammond&#39;s guilt?
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond</a></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/03/stakeout-how-the-fbi-tracked-and-busted-a-chicago-anon/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/03/stakeout-how-the-fbi-tracked-and-busted-a-chicago-anon/</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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?</p>

<p>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:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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. <strong>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.</strong> . . . He was one of six individuals from the
United States, England and Ireland indicted.</p>
<p>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 <strong>helped to disrupt at least 300 cyberattacks</strong>. . . .</p>
<p>Sabu was detained pending trial; in denying bail, Judge Loretta A.
Preska described Hammond as &quot;a very substantial danger to the
community.&quot; . . .</p>
<p>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;<strong>I did work with Anonymous</strong> 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.</p>
</blockquote>
