Deleting your browser history can be deemed “obstruction of justice” in the US

An interesting use of law.

canadajournal.net...

Deleting Browser History Could Be Considered ‘Obstruction Of Justice’?.


This story will make you think twice before you delete your browser history. Prosecutors are using (some might even say abusing) the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to charge individuals with obstruction of justice—essentially for deleting their cookies.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act mostly pertains to corporate financial reporting, but Section 802 of the law imposes severe penalties for “destroying, mutilating, concealing, falsifying records, documents, or tangible objects” with the intention of impeding a federal probe, reported The Verge.

Since it is difficult to prove the intent, the current interpretation of Section 802 makes it possible for the authorities to book anyone under it for deleting data that could turn out to be potential evidence in a crime at a later date.

a reply to: infolurker

So Hillary Clinton is a criminal?

a reply to: infolurker

This guy dined with them the night of the bombings. They think he knew something and just cant prove it so they are going to get him any way they can..

And Im glad this guy is gonna get effed..

Eta... since when does deleting your cookies and history actually delete it from your computer?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: infolurker

So Hillary Clinton is a criminal?

Is that a real question? If you or I did that would we be in deep trouble?

The privileged class can do as they wish, and half of America is dumb enough to justify their actions and defend it.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
a reply to: infolurker

This guy dined with them the night of the bombings. They think he knew something and just cant prove it so they are going to get him any way they can..

And Im glad this guy is gonna get effed..

Yeah, no problem going after the guy. I just don't like the precedent it sets.

a reply to: infolurker

And yet Clinton's emails that were deleted are A-OK......

a reply to: infolurker

Wouldn't a difficulty in proving the intent only be an issue for the prosecution? Don't they (prosecution) have to prove "intention of impeding a federal probe", instead of the accused proving his innocence?

I wonder what my lawyer would say about this. lmao

a reply to: infolurker

They would have to be able to show intent, it says that clearly in what you quoted.

And the last part is purely slippery slope.

How does it make sense that since it would be hard to prove intent they can just boom who ever they want?

Seems like a stretch. It would be just as easy to circumvent this by sending a subpoena to the ISP for the history. Granted, that doesn't cover anything the person browsed off their network, but it's better than nothing.

a reply to: infolurker

I clear my browser history every night and also run my anti virus system before i switch off , so looks like i am in trouble .

So this "Law" would also make Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple, Google etc, guilty of aiding and facilitating criminal activity by having the means to delete history built in to their browsers?

Maybe that'll be the next enforcement action then in the fight against the bogeymen, full removal of the ability to delete any history from a web browser. We'll all just have to put up with a mandatory cache spanning 10 years of browsing that can be recalled remotely by the authorities whenever we say or do something they don't like.

This act only applies to corporations, companies, accounting firms and their management.

In no way shape or form does this apply to the general population.

I seen this as well, but the funny part is if you do not delete your cookies it slows down your computer and alot of times you cant see refreshed websites, but the law is a shameful disguise for moral behaviour. This is about money, and they wanted the evidence to take money, and this is why they are whining.

originally posted by: JohnTheSmith
a reply to: infolurker

Wouldn't a difficulty in proving the intent only be an issue for the prosecution? Don't they (prosecution) have to prove "intention of impeding a federal probe", instead of the accused proving his innocence?

I wonder what my lawyer would say about this. lmao

He would say what you just said.

Its incumbent on the government to prove their case and not for the accused to prove their innocence.

trying to prove intent in this realm is problematic as others have pointed out. The deletion would need to be linked with other actions showing the person knew that his browser history could be linked back to criminal activity.

originally posted by: JohnTheSmith
a reply to: infolurker

Wouldn't a difficulty in proving the intent only be an issue for the prosecution? Don't they (prosecution) have to prove "intention of impeding a federal probe", instead of the accused proving his innocence?

I wonder what my lawyer would say about this. lmao

You are exactly right. The prosecutor must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And intent is an element of an obstruction charge.

GOVERNMENT = MAFIA

a reply to: infolurker

Total bs.

Like who is gonna know when I delete my browser history? Ridiculous.

And the article is coming out of Canada. I live in the United States.

what about taking out your garbage? or cleaning your basement? is that also obstruction of justice? who knows what grisly sordid little traces you may be disposing of in black bags with your nefarious rubber gloves and cleaning supplies...

I often delete the cash, I call it Maintenance!!!
F'em, its my comp not theirs.

Also, this makes me suspicious about whether everyone on the internet is really being tracked, because if that were the case, then they wouldn't need the browser cash.

a reply to: beezzer

Yes and long before she deleted her emails. Her and Smilin' Bill belong behind bars.