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