In the article title it says for the FBI, but in the article itself it says with the FBI. In this case, I think its just semantics because it was a sting operation so while he was working with them, he was also working for them as well.
To add a point to the article, I think they went too far in their operations saying to "open up on any government operation". Civil Disobedience, and taking down websites is one thing, leaking sensitive information is an entirely different story. This is also Fox news, so I don't know how bias or if this story is even the truth, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt.
You also have to read an article to understand its contents. Headlines have never been, and should not be, anything more than a headline.
And, I disagree with your analysis of "for." I am an english speaker living in the northeastern United States, and hear "for" differently than you describe.
In this context, "working for" usually indicates that the person in question is under the FBI's payroll.
"Working with" usually indicates that they're a witness of some sort helping with the investigation. You wouldn't say that a murder witness is "working for the police", you would say that they were "working with the police".
Maybe so if they do it to shorten the headline, but not if it perverts the meaning. I'd say it's okay as long as they get the point across, but I think this is a mistake--it changes the meaning of the title and still doesn't offer much benefit (one character) in terms of brevity.
To add a point to the article, I think they went too far in their operations saying to "open up on any government operation". Civil Disobedience, and taking down websites is one thing, leaking sensitive information is an entirely different story. This is also Fox news, so I don't know how bias or if this story is even the truth, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt.