You can be Prosecuted for Clearing Your Browser History

Palmpilot

Palmpilot

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
22,755
Location
PUDBY
Display Name
Display name:
Richard Palm
I'm not sure whether this is Spin Zone material or not, but if it becomes necessary to move the thread, so be it.

You Can Be Prosecuted for Clearing Your Browser History

"Khairullozhori Matanov, a friend of the Boston bomber, is being sentenced under a law whose purview is growing disturbingly wide."
 
Don't talk to cops.

Since Sarbox is so powerful, how about applying it to Hildabeast. She is the master of records destruction, and she knew there was an investigation under way as well.
 
Non internet connected printers, way of the future. They going to arrest people for starting the woodstove with old newspapers, same thing. Good thing I'm not brown or guilty of anything ever.
 
docmirror said:
Don't talk to cops.

Since Sarbox is so powerful, how about applying it to Hildabeast. She is the master of records destruction, and she knew there was an investigation under way as well.
Click to expand...

Our friends in the Oak Harbor PD, say never talk to us when we are in uniform. what you say may be turned into charges.
 
One of the persons mentioned in the article was prosecuted (in an unrelated case) for deleting stuff even though he apparently didn't know he was being investigated.
 
Always browse in a private Window.
 
I thought SOX was aimed at the corporate world? How do they justify expanding it to an individual merely being investigated? And how does clearing your cache differ from never keeping it in the first place?
 
bflynn said:
I thought SOX was aimed at the corporate world? How do they justify expanding it to an individual merely being investigated? And how does clearing your cache differ from never keeping it in the first place?
Click to expand...

I suppose that if you never keep it in the first place, it can't be demonstrated that you ever cleared it, because you wouldn't have.

The problem with policies like this is that they're far more likely to make innocent people look guilty than to catch actual miscreants. Windows leaves a trail of useless crap a mile long. Using something like CCleaner or similar programs regularly is just good computer maintenance.

Other good practices, such as deleting unneeded cookies to avoid tracking by Google, Facebook, etc., also could be construed as hiding something under these policies. I use Cookie Culler to delete all cookies except the few useful ones (like the "logged in" cookies from POA or other forums I frequent, or Weather Underground's logged-in and location cookies) every time the browser opens. Does that make me a terrorist, too?

More and more, it seems like the government is trying to make privacy itself illegal. Even if all you want is to make it slightly harder for Google to sell your life to the highest bidder, it makes you a suspect.

Rich
 
Land of the free and home of the brave.

Both assertions have been laughable for decades.
 
RJM62 said:
More and more, it seems like the government is trying to make privacy itself illegal. Even if all you want is to make it slightly harder for Google to sell your life to the highest bidder, it makes you a suspect.

Rich
Click to expand...
Ironically, one of the torches that Obama carried during his presidential bid was that he would make transparency a hallmark of his governing style.

And then there's this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-administration-sets-new-record-withholding-foia-requests/
 
docmirror said:
Don't talk to cops.

Since Sarbox is so powerful, how about applying it to Hildabeast. She is the master of records destruction, and she knew there was an investigation under way as well.
Click to expand...

Of course the laws don't apply to our overlords.
 
The worst thing about the modern, liberal, government, is that government workers, agents, officials, and lawyers are so insulated from reality that they THINK their dirty little agendas are invisible.
 
N801BH said:
Originally Posted by EdFred
Always browse in a private Window.






What the heck is a "private window?:dunno:
Click to expand...

I think its a personal account vs a company related internet excess. Could be wrong.
 
You can probably be charged for suggesting using private browsing mode. Teaching people how to avoid the long arm of the law is frowned upon.
 
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...
 
Which is exactly the policy they told us made the USSR so bad. I wouldn't call it O's baby someone else wrote in voted on by both sides and the other guy that lost said he would have signed it. Not a product of one party, product of an empire in decline.
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"
Click to expand...
 
Most browsers have a 'clear history on exit' function you can turn on.

They can arrest my browser inventor. ....
 
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"
Click to expand...

This appears to be the article that James quoted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
 
bartmc said:
No, most browsers have private mode where nothing you look at while in private mode is saved.
Click to expand...

Well... history isn't, anyway. Anything else is up for grabs. Depending on the browser, files and session cookies may be disk-cached; and if they are, they'll be deleted, but not securely. And of course, your ISP will still know what you're looking at unless you use a VPN or other encrypted proxy.

Private browsing is a good way to prevent your employer from looking at your browser history to see if you were browsing POA instead of working. It also prevents you from being tracked using cookies (but not by other methods), and it prevents user names and passwords you enter during the private session from being stored on the browser. And that's about it.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Well... history isn't, anyway. Anything else is up for grabs. Depending on the browser, files and session cookies may be disk-cached; and if they are, they'll be deleted, but not securely. And of course, your ISP will still know what you're looking at unless you use a VPN or other encrypted proxy.

Private browsing is a good way to prevent your employer from looking at your browser history to see if you were browsing POA instead of working. It also prevents you from being tracked using cookies (but not by other methods), and it prevents user names and passwords you enter during the private session from being stored on the browser. And that's about it.

Rich
Click to expand...

Which surprises me that the gov cares, presumably they have his browsing info in that building in Utah. Funny to remember all the bush era hate for checking library records.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Which surprises me that the gov cares, presumably they have his browsing info in that building in Utah. Funny to remember all the bush era hate for checking library records.
Click to expand...

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. It's easier to look at a browser history.

That's also why I believe that Bush was wrong to break down Clinton's "wall" between our domestic / criminal justice and national security intelligence-gathering operations. There are techniques that I believe are acceptable when used for foreign intelligence gathering, but which the Fourth Amendment prohibits with regard to criminal investigations or other domestic surveillance of citizens.

As an ironic (and rather depressing) aside, perhaps the biggest beneficiaries of our government's gusto for gathering data is the rapidly-growing cottage industry of proxy companies that don't keep logs and that route traffic through other countries like the Netherlands that still have very strict privacy laws.

Rich
 
Ok, swerve time...

Why isn't Hillary Clinton being prosecuted under the Sarbanes-Oxley law for deleting her emails?
 
Same reason cops are allowed to break the law and get away with it.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Which surprises me that the gov cares, presumably they have his browsing info in that building in Utah. Funny to remember all the bush era hate for checking library records.
Click to expand...


Even *if* they used that system to find someone doing something, they're not going to expose what they can do in court when the browser cache is available as evidence.

And saying he can be prosecuted for deleting it is all but admitting what they already know from a source they won't expose. Even if that's just a tap at the ISP. It's all about plausible deniability of what they can see. They're not going to put that on a court document.
 
bartmc said:
Is she a publicly traded company?
Click to expand...

Is Khairullozhori Matanov a publicly traded company? She was at least an executive in charge of a large organization.
 
Create a RAM disk on your computer, point your browser cache to use it, your history disappears upon power down
 
When the lovely Hill is prosecuted then I'll start to worry.
 
Similarly, Fakhoury says the government's underlying theory in cases like Kernell's is, "Don't even think about deleting anything that may be harmful to you, because we may come after you at some point in the future for some unforeseen reason and we want to be able to have access to that data. And if we don't have access to that data, we're going to slap an obstruction charge that has as 20-year maximum on you."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top