The poster has corrected it to say there were two numbers. Which seems more sus to me but I’ll give the benefit. Personally, I’ve heard the term spoofed number to apply to any number being used in a spoof attempt. Not necessarily the actual number, so that was where I was going with the forgiveness of the explanation.

Most companies don’t hand out CEO’s cellphone. So a late night text that ID’s itself as your boss and ask for info is not hard and doesn’t require the amount of suggested work earlier post have given regarding changing the caller ID, etc. Not saying that’s what happened, but having seen this done as well, and amaze me people fell for it, I can see this being an option.

Our company has 800 employees and half can be fooled by spoof attempts were the email being spoofed is “<corporate persons first initial and last name>@gmail.com” where our domain email is completely missing and replaced with a gmail account. When we explain what phishing is, we get replies like, “but they said they were this person. Here, I’ll forward you the email so you can read it!” 🤦🏼‍♂️

Spoofing doesn’t have to be good, it just has to work.

The special laws are the Hate crime laws and the Vandalism laws. It’s a chicken and an egg situation that sometimes is hard to understand about the American legal system. The Constitutional Rights came first and the laws came second. The stipulations to Hate crime laws are shaped generationally by what is defined as “Hate” at that time. It’s not because of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion that they will be held or tried, it’s because of the federal and local laws and statues that are established by elected officials in all levels of the Government that have defined a Hate Crime based on the constitutional guidelines. The Federal laws can also be contrary to local laws or more strict than local laws on the matter, which can result in laws that “fill the gaps” between federal laws and local needs. This is a rabbit hole of how complex a legal system can be and saying that the law has been made for churches that is separate from individual citizens, isn’t really correct here. The building, it’s contents, and the event is, by definition, religious and the act here can be defined as a hate crime for that reason. I guess the contrary would be sitting on your couch on a Sunday watching TV in atheist bliss only to have someone come into your home and start screaming at you and not leaving, threatening you and potentially causing you harm based on your beliefs and your rights to exercise them. You can say, “let trespassing laws handle it.” But in reality, the motivation and subsequent actions can lead to additional charges that prevent this person from getting just a fine for their actions.

Ok ok ok, slow down friend, you’re missing the forest for the trees. As someone who disagrees with organized religion and a lot of exceptions they get, I do agree with protection of religious freedoms. See, some people in this great country of ours would like to impose their religion on all of us and our religious freedom to not be religious (or whatever we want to be really) would be protected by the same rights you’re scoffing at. This isn’t a special law for religious organizations, it’s constitutional protections provided to help shape laws in the US such as hate crime laws. One could argue that without those protections, hate crime and vandalism laws could apply to anti <insert controlling governmental religion> speech, protest, etc etc. You’re not making a point here and people are downvoting you because you’re answer is wrong, not for any other reason.