Slashdot Mirror
US Prosecutors Say Clearing Browser Data Can Be Obstruction of Justice
The Nation reports that 24-year-old Khairullozhon Matanov, an associate of the since-convicted Tsarnaev brothers, faces charges not of conspiring with the Tsarnaevs, but of obstructing justice, and one aspect of the actions he took should probably concern anyone who has crossed paths online or in real life with subject of law enforcement scrutiny, and subsequently cleared their browser history. From the article:
The feds finally arrested and indicted him in May 2014. ... There were three counts for making false statements based on the aforementioned lies and—remarkably—one count for destroying "any record, document or tangible object" with intent to obstruct a federal investigation. This last charge was for deleting videos on his computer that may have demonstrated his own terrorist sympathies and for clearing his browser history.
What about using incognito mode?
I'm going to do it right now. Stuff it in your ass DOJ.
Usually when you say "from the article" you make the word "article" all blue and linky.
Is somewhat different from clearing browser cache.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
What US Prosecutors say is quite irrelevant to the law. Thank Goddess there are still a few checks on their kind of power.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Incognito will be illegal for failing to create evidence.
Usually when you say "from the article" you make the word "article" all blue and linky.
Why? It's not like anyone reads TFA anyway.
Link.
-- Cheers!
There is absolutely no way I'd support charges like this for anyone that deletes anything before they've been ordered to provide it to the court. Nobody is psychic and the law should not require psychic powers.
Afterwards? Yeah, absolutely destruction of evidence assuming the government can prove that he had what they're claiming he deleted.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
This country was founded on terrorist ideas. Sorry, meant freedom fighters... no rebels.
When you have a policy of destroying old records, it isn't 'destroying evidence'. They need to show that clearing browser history was not standard behavior for him. I for example, have my browser set to destroy all history after every session.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
They said "can be" not "it is".
Fuck'em. Anyway, they are all a bunch of cherry picking clowns - they only prosecute when they know they can win. Remember that when a prosecutor or ex-prosecutor brags how they never lost a case. There's a line from Goodfellas that sums it up but I won't repeat it here.
one aspect of the actions he took should probably concern anyone who has crossed paths online or in real life with subject of law enforcement scrutiny, and subsequently cleared their browser history.
Once you learn of an investigation or a law suit, or can be reasonably expected to know one is coming, it's incumbent upon you to save all records. This is well established, and has been in existence for quite some time. It's not something new with browser history. With browser history, though, it's going to be slightly tougher to prove that it was for the purpose of obstructing the investigation, rather than his normal course of activity. His erasure of videos will help law enforcement prove that, though.
~Loyal
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Neither is this disclaimer. Neither is the disclaimer of the disclaimer ad nauseam.
I aim to misbehave.
If you destroy or dispose of something because you believe it likely that prosecutors will seek that something as part of an criminal investigation, you have destroyed evidence and are obstructing justice. It doesn't matter whether that "something" is a piece of paper, a computer browser history or your baby tooth that fell out when you were six. Your suspicion that prosecutors will want that item makes its destruction a crime.
And like any crime, the prosecutor will have to prove it in court... not just that you wiped the browser history but that the reasonable explanation why you wiped the browser history was to prevent the authorities from gaining access to it. Actus rea -- wiping the browsing history. Mens rea - intending to hide something from police. The prosecutor has to prove BOTH to get a conviction.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
My browser is configured to automatically obstruct justice when I close the window.
How about automatic clearing of the browser cache? I have Pale Moon 64 set to wipe the cache on my work machine whenever I close it.
ok ok . Ill be honest. Once in a while i do delete browsing history. I have this feeling my browser becomes slower on my old computer once too much browsing history have accumulated. Furthermore i have also deleted it from time to time to remove any link to pron sites i have visited. I would have never thought it would be illegal to delete that data though.
From the article (including other cases, not just this one) the implied result is that I'm responsible for maintaining any and all data that the government may or may not notify me they are concerned with.
Where do I send the bill for all the backup tapes I'll need to buy to meet this requirement?
Get it, trial version ?
My browser cache is cleared automatically every time I terminate the browser. Sometimes when I am having a problem viewing a particular Web site, I change some of my browser settings and manually clear the cache. Daily, I manually clear all browser history that is more than 30 days old.
Some of my computer files are encrypted using PGP. The passphrase -- more than merely a password -- exists only in my head. When I decrypt such a file to view or use it, I use a military-strength, multiple-pass file eraser on the decrypted file. I also use that eraser on old backup files before doing a new backup.
Just because it is trivial to delete a browsing history doesn't mean you aren't destroying evidence by doing so. If you find yourself the subject of a police investigation, the first thing you should do is contact a lawyer and figure out what you should and should not be doing.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Does Slashdot and Dice Holdings Inc officially support US Prosecutors in decisions like this?
Many sane browsers will not cache SSL/HTTPS content by default. Many popular websites have switched to HTTPS by default. But if you go to https://slashdot.org/ it redirects you right back to the unsecured site. Ripe for interception and browser caching.
Slashdot and Dice Holdings Inc could help their users avoid such issues by switching to HTTPS by default.
All he did was use a tool available to him. The real criminals are Google, Microsoft Mozilla, who create these tools for the terrorists and distribute them, often free of charge, into the hands of the terrorists that use them.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
When deleting sensitive information on your computer, don't just drag it to the recycle bin. Use a "secure" deletion utility, and when you finish, defragment your hard drive.
Or better (if you knowingly want to destroy evidence), just reformat (non-quick) your entire HDD and reinstall a clean copy of your OS. "Yeah, it crashed last week. Bummer, huh?"
Pretty obvious that intentionally destroying evidence of a crime is considered destroying evidence of a crime. Were you to clear your cache when you have no reasonable basis to suspect it might become the subject of legal proceedings I doubt this would apply.
You could also establish a precedent of clearing your cache on a set frequency. If something happens you could make the case that you were following your standard procedure.
Was he being investigated at the time he cleared his browser?
If not, this is retroactively constructing a legal charge out of thin air.
It's basically saying "you should have known you were guilty of thought crime and preserved the evidence in case we ever decided to come looking for you". Fuck that.
My god but law enforcement have become writers of fiction, and have completely given up on the law. They'll just make up any old shit these days.
Hey, FBI, I'm clearing my browser history right now. I'm doing it again. I'm even blocking cookies and ads, AND listening to music without paying additional royalties. I'm even going to fast forward through commercials.
Assholes.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Should I contact the FBI ?
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
bleachbit bleachbit bleachbit
We've asked, lobbied, and begged for actions taken on a computer or across a network to be taken the same way by law enforcement and the courts as if they were taken offline with non-virtual items. This is a double-edged sword. It's okay to shred paper documents, but not if you're doing so with intent to destroy evidence of a crime. Well, now, they're just treating computer users the same as paper users. We asked. They answered.
Over at the Atlantic Monthly Conor Friedersdorf addresses the same issue, the recent criminalization of circumventing government surveillance, in the context of the prosecution of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Notably, he states, "Prosecutors may suspect Dennis Hastert of serious misconduct, but charging him with trying to avoid surveillance risks criminalizing harmless behavior." Harmless behavior which apparently now also includes the clearing of browser data.
So according to the U.S. Department of Justice, withdrawing money from a bank account in small increments or clearing browser data, in and of themselves, are now criminal acts. But it's just fine to delete thousands of government emails which are under congressional subpoena and which were illegally maintained on a private server.
In the U.S., law is not justice. It is a tool used by powerful thugs to threaten and persecute their political enemies while coddling their allies. Also, it is actually possible to renounce U.S. citizenship and I hear the weather is nice in Chile.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I've known several people whom use CCleaner with a scheduled task to automatically scrub browser cache and temp files.
Life is not for the lazy.
any defense attorney worth their salt could argue out of a charge such as this.... i mean, incognito mode because wife! seriously, if you knew my wife and my, um, habits, you would know all of this already..... just sayin'. /CF
systemd uses binary logs. So no-one will be able to read anything anyway.
Have gnu, will travel.
We can outfit people's homes and offices with a special disposal slot. When you want to destroy a document, just push it in and it's incinerated per government regulations.
We can call them "memory holes".
The law is structured such that everyone is a "criminal." The question is not whether you have broken some obscure law or run afoul of some perverse interpretation of the law, but whether the powers that be choose to make your life miserable.
Your personal breach of the law may be something so trivial as J-walking to get a cup of coffee, but you have broken the law.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Don't destroy evidence, protect your privacy: Always clear browser state. Intent matters.
He already spoke to the police, then cleared his browser later. That means he knew there was some form of investigation already underway at the time he deleted the browser history.
Unfortunately, I think that means intent doesn't matter now, except when it comes to sentencing. It was evidence, by not preserving it once he knew there was an investigation, he fell into the trap. He may have been ignorant of the trap, but he stepped in it.
That sucks. But I don't see a way around them getting him for that.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Could the same thing happen to users of Tor and VPN?
Like my browser is configured to do on exit?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If you're innocent you should not talk to feds. It's a felony to give false information to a federal agent so it's better not to say anything. A lot of people get in trouble for this. The feds have a 98% conviction rate anyway so if they want to get you it's about even odds with a Soviet show trial that they'll get a conviction.
No, not that Enterprise. Businesses! Create a scheduled task to do it at regular intervals, or just set your browser to not save it in the first place. Then set tasks to empty caches, delete temp files, empty recycle bins, zero free space, etc. It's not destruction of evidence if it's part of your normal process. This is why businesses most businesses have document retention policies in the first place. "Oh, you want all our emails to/from your client from 3 years ago? Sorry, our retention policy is to only keep emails going 6 months back. Tough luck mate."
Also consider using whole disk encryption that isn't from a closed source vendor. Compelling a password in a criminal case against you is, legally*, almost impossible in the US now.
*Your mileage may vary. Impact from heavy objects is not covered. Bring a towel, you may need it after the waterboarding.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Personally, I don't understand why people have browser history turned on at all. I build a lot of computers for people (by happenstance it's a hobby) I build a dozen or so per year. The FIRST thing I do after the first boot is install Firefox (my preference), permanently turn off browsing history, install AdBlock+, install HTTPS Anywhere, then launch Windows update and go watch a movie.
I've never seen history help anyone. But I've seen it cause all sorts of embarrassing accidents, fights with spouses, legal trouble, etc... Is there actually a use for it?
1) Stopping at a stop sign to avoid a traffic ticket.
2) No email or social media account? What are you trying to hide? Guilty!
3) No credit card? Terrorist! Drug smuggler!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Destruction of evidence has always been a crime. It's tough to imagine who deleting a history wouldn't run afoul of this.
Choosing to not build an evidence trail in the first place has is usually considered smart.
> We have had publicized double jeopardy (supposed to be unconstitutional) since OJ
He faced a civil trail after the criminal one and the civil trial was brought by his dead wife's estate. Double jeopardy only protects you from two criminal trials, not from civil liability. The fact that they had inconsistent verdicts is because they had different standards of proof. Civil trials cannot put you in prison, which is why they have a lesser standard, so that we reward whoever is most likely to be right, even if we're not absolutely sure for one side or another. Because this is person vs. person, it doesn't make sense to favor either side, whereas in a criminal trial, we favor the accused with the presumption of innocence.
> If they face a hearing, it's usually a closed door Grand Jury who magically and consistently decides that they should not be charged.
A grand jury is the same as a normal jury (i.e. random people picked for jury duty). It's just bigger than normal (grand is French for 'large'). You don't get any representation in a grand jury, rather they have to decide whether evidence sufficient to prove the crime exists. This is to prevent people from being dragged in to answer for crimes without evidence, as a full trial is really expensive for the accused.
So if a grand jury doesn't charge someone, it means that the evidence wasn't good enough. The person accused and their lawyer don't get a say in this, so their money can't get them off the hook. See this article for an explanation.
So, the problem with your statements is that 'double jeopardy' only covers criminal liability (i.e. the state charging you twice for the same crime, where the punishment is prison), not civil responsibility (which is between you & another citizen where it's just a matter of money) and that no matter how fancy the person's lawyer is, they're not even in the room with the grand jury, they don't get to talk to the jury, and so they don't even get the chance to influence the grand jury process. They're not allowed to talk to jurors outside of court, either, so your fancy lawyer is stuck outside the room and not allowed to talk to anyone on the jury.
When incognito mode is outlawed, only outlaws will have incognito mode. :)
The US Army's own advice in configuring web browsers is to always have them clear history on exit automatically.
My browser cache flushes every time I exit it or restart the machine. Any cookies are also deleted from only those sites that I allow cookies from. Other than that my drives are encrypted. This is standard practice. Have at it.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
If you're clearly your browser data with the INTENTION of obstructing justice, then I would agree... you did that. However, proving intent will be difficult.
If the justice department says they can presume intent or intent doesn't matter... then they're crazy.
But if you can prove that someone cleared their history to evade a criminal probe then that would of course be obstruction of justice. That's entirely reasonable. But you have to prove intent.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I was taught that back in civics class... a long time ago, in a country far, far away.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
@Slashdot: "There were three counts for making false statements based on the aforementioned lies"
.. MATANOV told Witness 2 that he recognized the address as belonging to his friend"
.. MATANOV and Witness 2 drove to the Braintree Police
Department, where they told the police that MATANOV knew Tamerlan Tsarnaev."
Dear slashdot, a) he voluntarily went to the police, b) he tried to distance himself from the Tsarnaevs, c) nothing he did prevented the identification of the Tsarnaevs d) he had no involvement in the events of April 15, 2013.
"MATANOV received a telephone call from one of his regular taxicab clients, Witness 2
"Witness 2 suggested that they speak to a police sergeant that Witness 2 knew
"MATANOV also told the detective some information that he intended to be false and misleading."
"MATANOV told the detective that he had not seen the photographs of the Tsarnaev brothers released by the FBI the previous night" ref
--
'Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested..'
Just look at the villain/spy icons related to Incognito- and Private-modes in Firefox and Chrome.
Unfortunately, there is a version of double jeopardy that has been approved by the court system. If you do something that is illegal under both federal and state law, you can be tried on both.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
They are typically different charges as the feds don't have vanilla murder statutes for example.
If a person is found not guilty in a murder trial, how is it that they can be charged in a civil trial for damages from a murder they are not guilty of? If you don't see that as double jeopardy you are either blind, or a complete idiot who should live inside of a box and not be allowed to participate in society.
You then define a grand jury nearly absolutely incorrect. What you got right is that it's more people than a standard 12 person Jury, but 16 is the normal. You seem to imply it's a massive amount of difference, contrary to reality.
The rest is completely wrong, please go do some reading. I'd recommend going to a University Law page as opposed to Wiki so that you truly understand what a grand jury is. Check State vs. Federal grand juries, they are not the same. Lastly find out who gets to see a grand jury, because here is a hint.. most of us would never see a grand jury, but if you have power and money you will.
A grand jury does not charge anyone, they rule on whether or not the person "should" be charged. A prosecutor can always go outside of a grand jury ruling and file charges, but this is used as an "out" for a prosecutor not to process someone (though that was not the original intent). Grand juries are closed door, and do not necessarily use randomly selected members.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/hda
If a person is found not guilty in a murder trial, how is it that they can be charged in a civil trial for damages from a murder they are not guilty of? If you don't see that as double jeopardy you are either blind, or a complete idiot who should live inside of a box and not be allowed to participate in society.
In the murder trial, that person was found "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt". That is an extremely high standard. In the civil court, there is a much lower standard: The court just has to find that the person is more likely to be the murderer than not.
In the Simpson case, would you be willing to deny justice to the Goldman family because police didn't have enough evidence against Simpson? And if he had been convicted, would you deny justice to the Goldman family because Simpson was already convicted once? That's pathetic.
It's really a shame that the opinion of idiots without a hint of knowledge of what they're talking about matters in this country.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... build a bomb.
No, wait. ... commit a felony:
Microsoft instruction for clearing browser history.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
No, it's not an extremely high standard. That is a constitutional defined basic standard. If a person is "not guilty" of a crime they can not be responsible for damages from that crime. That does not take rocket science level thought to understand, and prior to OJ who exactly was tried for similar civil damages for a crime they were found not guilty of? I await your list.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I should have addressed your 2nd point. Do you truly believe that every criminal found not guilty should also face a civil trial for damages after being found not guilty? The person found not guilty of breaking into a house should face civil trial for damages to the broken window by your standard.
If you demand a double standard then expect that you become the victim of false accusations, because that is how an unjust system works. By definition Justice must be metered fairly to everyone, or it's not justice.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
... would be difficult.
I have fixed a lot of problems by deleting browser history. As we all know, best practice calls for deleting browser history to maintain stability and speed.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
It's actually not that uncommon. The criminal trial can certainly weigh heavily on a civil trial, but there are completely different (~95% vs. 51%) standards of evidentiary burden. It's not hard to imagine meeting one without meeting the other. And nowhere does the law, Constitution, or any basis of our judicial system state that being "not guilty" makes you in any way entirely free of any responsibility.
All of this happened after he voluntarily shared pertinant information with the police. The message is clear:
NEVER HELP THE POLICE IN ANY WAY!
If that isn't the message they want to send, they really need to re-think their strategy.
The Bill of Rights states explicitly that you can not be tried for the same crime twice. There is no "but", "if", "we don't like that guy", or any other excuse. Until the OJ case it did not happen and would be thrown out if someone brought it up. Today it's happening frequently. See my comment below about the B&E charge and how stupid it is to have this form of double jeopardy... or any for that matter.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Or to use a more trivial example, many retailers will not only have shoplifters arrested and attempt to have them prosecuted, they will also go after them for civil damages. A particularly idiotic friend of mine found this out after he plea-bargained to a community service sentence, then he got a settlement letter from his "victim" offering to settle civil liability for a couple hundred. As I recall, the merchandise he took was worth about $20, but they were throwing in legal fees and god knows what else.
We are the 198 proof..
Civil liability for damages is not the same as criminal culpability for a crime. You aren't being tried twice for a crime, you are being tried once for the crime and once for the damage that got caused by the events that appeared to be a crime, regardless of whether you were guilty of the crime. There can still be damages even if no crime was committed.
Automobile accidents are a good example. Even if you get acquitted of criminal charges for reckless driving or vehicular manslaughter, if you are at fault in the accident, you (or your insurance company) are going to have to pay out for the damages caused by the accident.
So the Goldmans didn't have to prove that OJ murdered his wife, they just had to prove that he was primarily responsible for her death and that they suffered damages as a result.
We are the 198 proof..
The summary is poorly worded.
It's not that clearing your browsing history, throwing out old logs/emails or flushing your toilet are inherently illegal, it's when you use them and why.
If the cops are knocking at your door and you decide to flush the drugs, that's obstruction, if you just hacked someone's system and then wiped all of the local logs on your machine to hide the evidence, that's obstruction. If however you have as a routine process... not to retain any email older than say... 30 days and purge pretty regularly (either manually or automatically), that's not obstruction, that's just good cleanliness, and if some incriminating evidence happens to be wiped out on day 30, it's a lot harder to prove that you were doing so to hide your wrongdoing rather than simply not wanting to have to keep around old Amazon offers which clutter your inbox.
This is why a lot of orgs have data retention policies that call for automatic deletion. Storage space is cheap; the liability you may have for old data can be huge.
On the other hand, if you get sued a lot, then keeping good records is key because it lets you show you didn't do anything wrong. (For Competent Doctors or insurance companies, for example, keeping detailed old records is a very good defense.)
Civil trials cannot put you in prison...
This is technically true but I feel some clarification is in order. If one does not adhere to the judge's orders, perhaps by failing to pay the adjudicated monetary penalty, then one is guilty of contempt and may well be placed in jail. This does not mean that civil trials can put someone in jail but, rather, someone can end up in jail due to not adhering to the penalty portion of the trial. Contempt is indefinite as well, so one could, theoretically, languish in prison for longer than they would have if they had lost the criminal trial.
I know of no case where they have actually spent more time in prison for contempt than they would have if they had received a guilty verdict in a criminal trial. This does not mean it has not happened, it means that I do not pay attention enough and have not searched and found someone who has had this happen or that, simply, it has not happened at all. I mention it because it is a possibility and people do go to jail for contempt when they fail (are unable?) to adhere to the judgment. They may be unwilling or they may be unable to meet monetary penalties, for example, and will likely end up in jail because of this. If they are able to but unwilling to then I have no sympathy. If they are unable to and end up being incarcerated then they are even more unlikely to be able to meet their financial obligations and that seems counterproductive.
Anyhow, I mention this not because you are wrong - you are 100% correct - but because people may assume that one can not end up incarcerated as a result of a civil trial. The penalty itself may not be incarceration but failing to meet the expectations lined out with the penalty can, indeed, result in a contempt of court charge which will likely result in incarceration.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Actually the standard should be beyond a reasonable doubt in civil cases and far stronger than this in criminal cases. It's very easy for prosecutors to convince juries that those they're accusing are guilty. They merely need to come up with a plausible storey in the real world. Evidence of this can easily be shown from the number of people who have been acquitted due to DNA evidence in murder cases (that is people convicted before DNA's widespread use who were later found to not match the person at the crime scene- for instance rape/murder scenarios). There really is nobody contesting things in court any more in criminal cases ever since the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were enacted the number of people charged with crimes whom have pleaded not guilty has fallen from 83% (1983) to 96% (2009). This is a rise attributed largely to the Sentencing Guidelines. The problem with the guidelines is it put the power into the hands of the prosecutor among numerous other tricks they already had in there bag to force innocent people to plead guilty.
The reality is it doesn't matter how bad the evidence is or how little evidence there is. The prosecutor will pull something out that they can use against the person they want to convict of a crime. Often the crime they're actually being targeted for has less of a penalty than the one they're using to go after the person. For example a jaywalked can be charged with a crime for lying (or whatever the prosecutor/cop says) which then results in a 20 year sentence. There is a reason you NEVER talk to a cop even if it is involving a crime someone else committed. They're looking for a person to charge and they don't care if you did it or not.
You are conflating criminal murder with civil wrongful death. The two are not the same and the preponderance of evidence is lower in a civil trial than it is at a criminal trial. In a civil trial one must only prove that it is more likely than not (not even remotely the same as beyond reasonable doubt - which is not the same as beyond all doubt) the defendant is at fault for the accused act. Additionally, civil trials in this type of case are not the same as civil trials brought by the state. A state may charge you for a civil offense, such as a parking infraction, where no jail time is possible in the judge's verdict. A civil trial, in civil court, is brought by a person/company/organization and is against the same. No verdict from such a trial can include penalties greater than a monetary judgment. The penalties may not include anything that limits rights or removes rights. The penalty may include transfer of property, money, and such. This is separate and has no impact on criminal charges.
I am not a lawyer. However, does that make more sense? I am not saying I agree with this, I am not offering my opinion on the subject. I am simply stating how it works.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
First you ask them what they believe.
>>Do you truly believe that every criminal found not guilty should also face a civil trial for damages after being found not guilty?
Then you tell them what they believe.
>>The person found not guilty of breaking into a house should face civil trial for damages to the broken window by your standard.
The most amusing part is you ascribe the law and how other people use it, a statement that in no way implies their position, as being their opinion. The logical disconnect is amazing and I am not sure what sort of mental gymnastics were used to reach these conclusions. They opined on one single case, a case that has already reached a conclusion and has been resolved completely in the courts - with no successful appeals and no constitutional violations. In other words they mentioned how preventing justice in a civil court was bad. This is one of the very principles our country was founded on. You are free to find a different country but we have well established laws that are not always unjust.
TL:DR I do not think you are actually interested in discourse nor are you interested in the answers to either question. Your uneducated and inflammatory response is childish, ignorant, and unequivocally stupid.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If a person is found not guilty in a murder trial, how is it that they can be charged in a civil trial for damages from a murder they are not guilty of? If you don't see that as double jeopardy you are either blind, or a complete idiot who should live inside of a box and not be allowed to participate in society.
So if a person who is insane and on medication skips their meds, and has a psychotic break that results in the deaths of people, they can't be held civilly liable for their actions if they aren't convicted? Conviction is a higher standard. Beyond reasonable doubt. Civil has a smaller threshold, and different rules, preponderance of the evidence. If we say that "reasonable doubt" is a 99% standard, and preponderance is a 51% standard, if someone is 75% "guilty" they should (under the current rules) be civilly liable for their actions, but no criminally liable. What's the problem with that? You don't like the civil standard? Or you'd like to have all criminal trials concurrently run with a separate civil trial to save time and trouble?
Learn to love Alaska
Almost every successful action against a cop, police department or school. I could name hundreds, but I don't think it'd matter to you, so I won't waste my time. Though in many cases they weren't "found not guilty" as the trials rarely make it to that stage. What's the number now? 90%+ are plea-bargained out?
Learn to love Alaska
Sure, I asked if they believed something but I did not tell them what to believe. I gave them an extrapolation of their standard based on the definition of Justice. Perhaps the Socratic method is completely foreign to you, but that is how we determine how rational someone's thought process is.
The most amusing part is how you project a complete fabrication into two new paragraphs, one of which claiming you are too lazy to read something. You close with a mass of insults. If you have not had too much to drink I am guessing you are fully retarded. Sod off!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
> The Bill of Rights states explicitly that you can not be tried for the same crime twice.
So you know that, but you don't realize that a civil offense is a TORT and not a CRIME? Words mean things. With the level of reading comprehension you've displayed, you have no capacity whatsoever for even understanding the law and it's a complete waste of time to talk to you.
When will breathing air become illegal? You know, providing material support for a terrorist. FTG.
Supposedly we are all secure in our papers etc.. The catch is that when one erases things there is often no knowledge that anything might be of interest in a criminal case. Sometimes one has files that one doesn't even know exist as someone else uses your PC from time to time. These laws get abused in minor local cases quite frequently. For example if you receive a bad check and are disgusted and rip it to shreds and then get arrested because you tried to cash the check they will claim you destroyed evidence. They assume you deliberately presented a bad check. The law has way too much power and what is called a proof is now absurd. For example the old stunt of stuffing a bit of dope under someone's car seat and dropping a dime about dope in their car often puts people in prison. If it is in your car the possession is assumed and possession is then used as a truth that you did possess the dope knowingly and deliberately. Sometimes it is a cop who sticks the dope under the seat. Felony arrests yield promotions in the PD.
Someone please hack his browser history and post it online. We need to teach him the clearing your history is not obstruction of justice it's just good practice.
I used to have my browser set to clear history every time I close it.
It can only be criminal if you know you are under investigation at the time you do it. If you have some plugin that clear your history automatically or if you're just in the habit of clearing it regularly - or for that matter, if your browser only retains history for 3 days anyway (I used to have one like that) - then I can't see where there is any crime.
Browsers appear to be designed intentionally to store copious amounts of data not really needed by the user and lie or withhold the full truth about the disposition of that data when the user presses delete.
Windows+IE is particularly egregious in that webcache database is locked by OS second you login without even having any browsers open. Perhaps there is a valid technical excuse for all of this - personally I doubt it. I would be honestly surprised if this is not done intentionally to make it easy for the law to collect dirt on people and deny average people the ability to not have their browsers keep unwanted and unnecessary historical data.
At one time I had browsers configured to use a compressed ram drive for storage which is nice when you reboot all of the cookie and database is gone. Seems to be a good compromise between keeping data forever and having to continuously re-login to places who don't see your cookie.
on your browser.. deleting doesn't do what you think it does.
This guy is obviously guilty.
I mean, just look at the evidence; it's not there!
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
... is stored in ramdisk.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I am always taken back when I hear about such cases. Back here in Germany there are no rules against destroying evidence against you. We derive this from the fact that "you have the right to remain silent", meaning that no one can be forced to testify against himself. If law enforcement does not prevent the (alleged) destruction of evidence, that is bad luck for law enforcement. On the other hand, search warrants are relatively easy to obtain and the fruit of the poisonous tree is legit in court for all but the most blatant cases, which have to be declared expressively by the judge.
No, it's not an extremely high standard.
Criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases only require that the plaintiff's case has been proved on the balance of probabilities. The former is a much higher standard of proof.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
isn't there an amendment that protects you from testifying against yourself? Doesn't it protect you from your own data?
The Bill of Rights states explicitly that you can not be tried for the same crime twice.
OJ was not tried for the same crime twice. He was tried once at a criminal trial and found not guilty. The subsequent civil trial was a claim for damages for wrongful death, and it was found that on the balance of probabilities he was responsible and should pay damages . He was not found "guilty" of anything and did not suffer a criminal punishment.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Do you truly believe that every criminal found not guilty should also face a civil trial for damages after being found not guilty?
Yes, why not? If you can produce sufficient evidence why should they get away scot free?
You seem to be under the impression that in a civil case you just ask for some money and the defendant has to give it to you. There is still a trial by jury.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The Bill of Rights is all about what the "government" can't do to the "people". It's your *rights* that the government are not supposed to be able to mitigate.
Free Speech? In a public place like a street corner ... in my house? You got absolutely no *right* to free speech in my living room ... period.
Hell, Slashdot is *Private Property* and you have no *right* to Free Speech here ... period.
You simply don't understand the context and intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Civil Responsibility (person vs person) is completely different then Criminal Responsibility (society vs a person). Double Jeopardy applies to the latter ... not the former. Never has, never will, unless the constitution itself is changed.
No verdict from such a trial can include penalties greater than a monetary judgment. The penalties may not include anything that limits rights or removes rights. The penalty may include transfer of property, money, and such.
You are mistaken when you state that taking property, money, and "such" does not limit or remove rights. Property owners have rights. Even those with entirely artificial stuff that the legal profession decides to call property have rights (ask the RIAA).
More to the point, the Founding Fathers screwed up when they put the double jeopardy text into the Constitution, but putting in the word "crime". This kind of mistake is exactly the kind of thing the Anti-Federalists anticipated. But it doesn't matter, the legal profession is in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to being able to force somebody to go through multiple trials for the same event or action, since that creates extra business for lawyers. As a consequence of the 9th Amendment right to ethical practice of law, where even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided when possible, the protection against double jeopardy is necessarily extended to civil trials, as well as to trials by different governments.
In short, by including the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, James Madison (addressing the objection of the Anti-Federalists that any Bill of Rights would be incomplete) put a mechanism in the highest law of the land to deal with the mistakes in a sensible manner.
The unwillingness of the US legal profession to act accordingly has nothing to do with what the law actually is, and everything to do with an inability to act ethically. The situation with respect to double jeopardy is really very similar (from an ethics perspective) to the slavery issue, or the "Jim Crow" laws. In all these cases, there was a massive ethics failure on the part of the legal profession, with illegal laws and precedents being enforced because the profession refused to deal with the ethical conflicts of interest. Such things tend to take many decades to resolve, if history is any guide.
There is no reason in principle why multiple parties wanting to get involved in a case can not act together, under the highest standards of evidence applicable, to have all civil and criminal matters resolved at the same time, in the same court, with the same jury. Any potential issues with the timing of matters can be resolved with some sensible rules (to prevent, for example, a civil case from trumping a criminal one). In other words, they CAN come up with sensible rules, therefore they HAVE TO. The failure to do this kind of thing is unethical practice of law, and a violation of the oaths sworn by the parties involved to uphold the Bill of Rights.
Just another datapoint in making the case that this government has as its ultimate goal of making EVERYONE a criminal. With the hundreds of thousands of pages in the US Code plus all of the regulations put out by the unelected bureaucrats in both DC AND all 50 state capitols, it has become virtually impossible to not be afoul of many of these laws/regulations. Its then just a matter of law enforcement swooping down on said "lawbreaker" and shuffling the victim off to the slammer, or simply fining the victim such that it causes destruction of the victims (and his/her familys) livelihood..
America is going down the tubes, thanks to both parties and the armies of unelected bureaucrats...... May God Help Us!!!
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
He was sued for "wrongful death" _after_ being found not guilty of causing the death. That is exactly what Double Jeopardy is. Go read the Constitution and show me where it states that you can be tried for the same crime as long as it's Civil court versus Criminal court. Find that, and I will immediately apologize and bow to your wisdom. I won't have to apologize though, because the Bill of Rights is very clear that under no circumstances should it be allowed.
Do you think that it was not until modern times that some ass wipe in power figured out that you can arrest someone and take their property at will based on multiple counts and trials for the same crime?
Now I'll give you that it has been happening and point out that I never said contrary. I stated that it was not Constitutional for it to happen.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Notice the bold part right? Yup, they had Civil cases back then too. The difference is primarily in something that the US has lost in the last couple decades called "mens rea". The remainder is turning the loss of people's rights into a spectacle that they enjoy watching. When it's entertaining because it's happening to someone else it's extremely palatable.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yes, but it still means you can be tried twice for the same actions, sometimes on the basis of similar laws.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I had to delete my browser cache! I'm an undercover agent and national security depends upon my every move!
It's obstructing justice for civilians of course, but as a secret agent we operate under different rules. License to kill, poisoned pens, supermagnet watches. I've already said too much, just keep this to yourself, OK?
You herped when you should have derped. Eh... What do you believe? I will extrapolate what you believe based on my own assumptions! Herp...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
See subject "Forrest" & this -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
See subject "Forrest" & this -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...