You can be Prosecuted for Clearing Your Browser History

For a little privacy, each browser has a mode where history and cookies are not kept. To use it:

In Explorer go to safety > inPrivate Browsing
In Chrome its New Incognito window
In Safari it's private browsing

If you want more privacy, research TOR.
 
James331 said:
Well if you want to get into the brass tacks of it.

Under MaObama's NDAA act, they can detain you for the rest of your life with no fair trial, evidence, or anything else.


So yeah, if you **** the overlords off enough you just go away, no trial or court or lawyers required.

But don't worry it's for your "safety" and "the children"


The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism", authorizing the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil. Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority. The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil
Click to expand...

Doesn't this violate posse comitatus? The military are prohibited from operating inside the U S. How can they toss a citizen into a military jail anywhere without violating the? Or is that an exception the smarter than the founding fathers wrote in.
 
silver-eagle said:
Doesn't this violate posse comitatus? The military are prohibited from operating inside the U S. How can they toss a citizen into a military jail anywhere without violating the? Or is that an exception the smarter than the founding fathers wrote in.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. But if you disappear people without a trial how do you get a case to challenge the law? We are so far past adhering to the constipation it just is. Was a nice empire hopefully the fall and replacement ain't too bad.
 
NDAA is the worst thing that came out of the obama-boehner collaboration.
 
wsuffa said:
All the more reason to use an encrypted drive. You have a first amendment right to not disclose the password. Does not apply in other countries.
Click to expand...


This is no longer true. It has been upheld a number of times now that if you don't provide the in encryption key during an investigation, you can be charged with obstruction and it will stick. You get to choose whether you're going to jail for your actual crime or the crime of not handing over the password.

Pretty much all this means is that you'd better make the illegal stuff on the hard drive very lucrative and worth the secondary jail sentence where no evidence other than your unwillingness to cooperate in an investigation against yourself.

The 4th and 5th Amendments to our Constitution are on their deathbed. All they have to do is claim you're a "domestic terrorist" to hold you indefinitely without trial, anyway.
 
The most dangerous domestic terrorist in America is in the white house.
 
Scrabo said:
Create a RAM disk on your computer, point your browser cache to use it, your history disappears upon power down
Click to expand...
:eek: pure genius

denverpilot said:
This is no longer true. It has been upheld a number of times now that if you don't provide the in encryption key during an investigation, you can be charged with obstruction and it will stick. You get to choose whether you're going to jail for your actual crime or the crime of not handing over the password.
Click to expand...
true story: my memory absolutely sucks. torture me all you want and I'm probably not going to be able to give you any complex password to save my life. :redface:
 
wsuffa said:
All the more reason to use an encrypted drive. You have a first amendment right to not disclose the password. Does not apply in other countries.
Click to expand...

Wait until the Internet is controlled by the UN.

It's happening. Now.
 
Scrabo said:
Create a RAM disk on your computer, point your browser cache to use it, your history disappears upon power down
Click to expand...

I'm a techno dweeb. Internet for dummies is too advanced for me. How do you do that?
 
Florida Cracker said:
The most dangerous domestic terrorist in America is in the white house.
Click to expand...

This is quite true.

Funny how the drooling masses are scared of every two bit "terrorist" half way around the world, who has no real ability to really even strike US soil, and yet they have never even heard of the NDAA, good job touting the company line major media.

As a law abiding US citizen, on US soil, you're WAAAY more likely to be killed, disfigured, sexually assaulted, or robbed by a person working for the US government then any "terrorist" you see on TV.
 
But we have brave soldiers to protect us...
 
RJM62 said:
My personal hunch is that there's very little that Uncle can't intercept and, if necessary, decrypt. But using evidence in a criminal trial that was obtained using capabilities that we don't officially have (and which would probably be unconstitutional) would be problematic, at best.
Click to expand...

That's funny, I think that HAVING capabilities which are probably unconstitutional is problematic whether they are officially recognized or not. Worse is having people running these programs who don't really care what the Constitution says about it.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I found that interesting. So, say you wipe your prints off a gun after you kill someone. Is that now considered obstruction?

Crap like this is why I started voting Libertarian.
Click to expand...

It's still murder. That's the charge you ought to be worried about.
 
bflynn said:
That's funny, I think that HAVING capabilities which are probably unconstitutional is problematic whether they are officially recognized or not. Worse is having people running these programs who don't really care what the Constitution says about it.
Click to expand...

Of course they are for the country as a whole. But admitting to them would be more of a problem for the ones running the show.

Rich
 
EdFred said:
Killing != murder

Might have been self defense.
Click to expand...

I guess I should have said homicide. Self defense is a mitigating or exculpating circumstance, but it's still a homicide.

But why wipe the gun if acting in self defense?
 
Flying Viking said:
I guess I should have said homicide. Self defense is a mitigating or exculpating circumstance, but it's still a homicide.

But why wipe the gun if acting in self defense?
Click to expand...

Responsible gun owners always clean their guns after using them.
 
Palmpilot said:
I have no idea whether the subpoena is appropriate, but advocating the killing of a judge is a little more serious than just posting a comment about the Feds.
Click to expand...

Given the general level of discourse on the average web comment board!

Also, and I haven't read the post in question, could it have been sarcastic? Unserious? As stupid as such a statement would be, it is not illegal to say 'Someone should kill that idiot.'

I am concerned about the sweeping and one-sided nature of the govt response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top