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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
systemd uses binary logs. So no-one will be able to read anything anyway.
Have gnu, will travel.
When incognito mode is outlawed, only outlaws will have incognito mode. :)
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.
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.
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.