Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Prosecutors Say Clearing Browser Data Can Be Obstruction of Justice

Posted by timothy on from the goodness-and-light dept.

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?

24 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm going to do it right now. Stuff it in your ass DOJ.

  2. Link? by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Usually when you say "from the article" you make the word "article" all blue and linky.

    1. Re:Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      There was a link, but they cleared their browser cache...

    2. Re:Link? by ewhenn · · Score: 4, Informative

      In case anyone says RTFA, here it is for your enjoyment: http://www.thenation.com/artic...

    3. Re:Link? by DaHat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    4. Re:Link? by Geistmaus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The way you've described it, entering a not-guilty plea is an obstruction of justice. Fundamentally, the government -- in the US -- has no right to your papers and effects until a warrant has been served. After which we can start talking about obstruction or the destruction of evidence.

    5. Re:Link? by metrix007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not obstruction to hide evidence of something before you are charged.

      Or, it's not obstruction to not incriminate yourself by leaving clear evidence out.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  3. Deleting videos by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Deleting videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How does that compare to deleting 30,000 emails while Secretary of State AFTER they were subpoenaed by Congress? Because apparently that isn't worth talking about, so I'm trying to understand the difference.

    2. Re:Deleting videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know - I have limited space on my SSD so I'm quite likely to aggressively delete cached videos just so I have some storage left to...well...do meaningful work. It's bad when the government tells ISPs to "keep everything, just in case we need it". It's worse when the government tells the public to "keep everything, just in case we need to investigate you".

      Maybe ISPs can afford to have 10PB of offline archives in case they need to cooperate in an investigation, but I certainly don't have the space, power or wherewithal to keep a terabyte of permanent (uncorrupted, verifiable and backed-up) records just in case *I* need to cooperate in an investigation. I'm not the IT department for the DA office, nor am I required to incriminate myself.

    3. Re:Deleting videos by s.petry · · Score: 5, Informative

      She did not get caught deleting 30,000, she was caught deleting EVERYTHING EXCEPT 30,000. We don't know, and never will know how many emails she really deleted. Hillary is not the only Public Servant (har har) to do this and not face charges. Members of the IRS "lost" emails, as did members of the ATF, DEA, GSA. Then we have other people that didn't lie about it and simply refused to hand over information, like NSA, CIA, FBI, DoJ, GSA, DEA, IRS, etc.. etc...

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Deleting videos by rholtzjr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      An acquaintance of mine also ran into something similar with the local law enforcement where I live. They threw him in jail for 24 hrs for "speeding and reckless driving" in the police station parking lot (which has surveillance) because he did not wait another two hours to file a complaint against a neighbor (police crony) for harassing his son. An officer stated that he witnessed the whole thing. They stormed his house with 4 officers 4 hours after the incident, through him up against the wall in front of his terrified daughter to arrest him. Come trial, the police video was "lost" or "deleted". Luckily, the much more tech savvy fire department next door had their surveillance video and graciously provided their video footage exonerating said person.

      They do not "lose" them. They intentionally delete them to leave no trail which can be used against them in trial or congressional oversight committee.

      Always remember, the prosecution is a human as well as the defense attorney and both will bend the truth to their liking in order to show that something/nothing wrong was done.

      BTW, the attorney for the acquaintance humiliated the police department in trial who then had to issue a formal apology.

  4. Incognito mode by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Incognito will be illegal for failing to create evidence.

    1. Re:Incognito mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      on the contrary, since incognito mode never creates the records sought in the first place, a federal prosecutor cannot then cite the federal statute forbidding the destruction of the records.

  5. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  6. Linkydinky by tsa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Link.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  7. Not unusual. by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  8. Nothing to see here, move along. by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Nothing to see here, move along. by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

      We have had publicized double jeopardy (supposed to be unconstitutional) since OJ

      Getting acquitted in a criminal trial (no matter how appropriately or, in his case, ridiculously) has never made one immune to civil suits. Being subsequently sued for wrongful death by the family of your victim isn't "double jeopardy." It wasn't before the Simpson case, and it isn't now.

      He did face subsequent criminal charges, on other matters. And he's in jail now for breaking into a hotel room (armed!) and a series of issues surrounding that event.

      people with money never go to jail

      People like OJ Simpson, you mean? Or Bernie Madoff? Or Phil Spector? Or Martha Stewart?

      Most never face charges, let alone a trial or hearing. If they face a hearing, it's usually a closed door Grand Jury who magically and consistently decides that they should not be charged.

      So pretty much you're just making stuff up. That's OK, but at least admit it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Nothing to see here, move along. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to be rather dense to think a civil trial is a prosecution, though.

  9. Oh, bullshit ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. It's OK by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    systemd uses binary logs. So no-one will be able to read anything anyway.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. Incognito Mode - Godless Communism! by RevSpaminator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When incognito mode is outlawed, only outlaws will have incognito mode. :)

  12. Re:You might want to brush up on your legal studie by s.petry · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.