SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A law that was allegedly passed in response to corporate accounting scandals like Enron's and Worldcom's is now being used far outside of its original intentions:
A lot of Internet users delete their browser history and clear their cache and cookies.
It's just one of those things you do — some more often than others — if you own and use a computer.
"If you don't clear this information, it's there for someone to come along and retrieve — either by sitting down at your computer or remotely if you visit vicious websites or get a virus," said a Patrol Tech expert.
But the recent Boston Marathon bombing trial has brought to light a law, ratified in 2002, that could land you with a federal charge of obstructing justice for — wait for it — clearing your browser history.
Techdirt points out some of the serious problems with this chilling precedent:
In a hypothetical posed recently (containing a real-world example), finding yourself in possession of child pornography poses a serious dilemma. Possession is a crime, but so is destruction of evidence. Sarbanes-Oxley demands the preservation of evidence in "foreseeable" investigations, and child porn possession is one of those crimes no law enforcement agency ignores.
The article over at Dailykos covers the relevant section of the law, along with other details:
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The spirit of this law seems to be just another way to criminalize spoliation, but like too many laws in the post-9/11 world its written overly broad and rarely, if ever, used for its stated purpose. It scares me to see that simply performing maintenance on your computer, or worse being the victim of a CP-rickroll, will land you in prison no matter what you do. Is there anything we can do to stop this creeping totalitarianism, or is the police state already so entrenched that the only option left is to abandon ship?
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday June 11 2015, @08:34PM
So they have to prove you knowingly deleted evidence of a crime and they can't force you to testify against yourself. Seems pretty difficult to prove. Anyways, if someone is sending you childporn then you should report them. Just don't delete your history before you do! (lol)
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Thursday June 11 2015, @10:15PM
But by not deleting it you are in possession of it, which is in and of itself a crime regardless of how it got there.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday June 12 2015, @12:16AM
Yeah, i guess any time someone finds a body and reports it they are tried and convicted for murder.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday June 12 2015, @01:07AM
Fallacy: false equivalence.
The fact is, CP is treated differently than just about anything else. Mere possession is illegal, no matter how you got it, and it's become a boogeyman even worse than terrorism somehow. However, stumbling across a dead body (even in your own house) is not illegal by itself.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday June 12 2015, @01:30AM
Are you saying that everyone who has reported CP they saw while browsing the web has been sent to jail?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:19AM
There have been cases of persons reporting CP with evidence being tried and found guilty of possession of CP. The moral of the story is "never talk to the cops."
The point of "zero tolerance" is so that everyone gets there chance to spend time in jail. It's the American way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:27AM
All computers you own, including all removable media and stuff like cell phones, will be carted off as evidence. You might get it back with only minor damage after a few years have passed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lentilla on Friday June 12 2015, @02:39AM
The conversation will never go "Excuse me, Officer, but I came across some C.P. whilst browsing, would you look into it?" No, it will never happen like that. What will happen is that you will suddenly be under the microscope.
It is not out of the realm of possibility that your computer will be seized. In a way that's understandable - secure the evidence until it is known what we are dealing with. Once they have your computer it is likely that they will scan it. I've seen some odd things turn up in browser caches (as in, "wtf? where ever did that come from?") so I wouldn't like to take a gamble with somebody who has a axe to grind. (Remember that law enforcement generally assumes that everyone who isn't wearing a badge is a criminal. That makes sense, because the citizens they deal with are usually the naughty ones.) As the sages say "give me six megabytes committed by the most honest of web browsers, and I shall find a reason to 'rm -rf *'".
I imagine I'd personally be in a for a world of hurt. You see, my computer isn't "normal" (no Windows, and not even a Mac), so I must be hiding something. Right? Full disk encryption is even more of a red flag.
The only (reasonably) safe way to report C.P. is through your lawyer. Even then, it's still a dicey proposition. It's the kind of thing that is best reported anonymously. Of course not everybody feels like dropping a couple of hundred bucks to report something.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Friday June 12 2015, @02:08PM
(Remember that law enforcement generally assumes that everyone who isn't wearing a badge is a criminal. That makes sense, because the citizens they deal with are usually the naughty ones.)
Would you trust the competence of a doctor who thinks that everyone they meet is sick?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VortexCortex on Friday June 12 2015, @04:52AM
Anyways, if someone is sending you childporn then you should report them. Just don't delete your history before you do! (lol)
Good luck:
<iframe style="width:1px;height:1px" src="http://kiddyporn.com/randomimages.php">
You see, that blog you regularly visit runs Wordpress giving it multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities, and some angsty teen script kiddie who installed Metasploit used it to place a hidden iframe on the blog which causes your browser to download several random child porn images to your browser cache without you even knowing it. You see, the teens are pissed that expressing their sexuality via "sexting" is criminalized. It doesn't matter if they're wrong or right, what matters is they're rebelling to show how ridiculous making a series of bits illegal is. So, how will you explain the evidence in your ISP's records and your web browser cache which shows you regularly downloaded kiddie porn for months on end? I sure as hell hope you set your history to clear every day and have been using whole disk encryption from the get go in order to mitigate the danger of having possession of illegal strings of bits that you'll never even see. On the other hand, if you do then the ISP records will prove you're destroying evidence. Protip: The prosecutors are corrupt and do not unsually give you all the evidence they have, such as the NSA PRISM data with the HTTP-REFERRER header (sic) which shows the requests were automated and the HTML which shows the CP was invisible.
Now, you might think this is a hypothetical, but I've cleaned such code out of web sites about fifteen times over the past several years. Often times the skiddies don't close the hole they got in with and the site remains vulnerable so some other skiddie who overwrites / changes the child porn injection code. That means the site admin might not even know they were linking you to CP by the time the exploit is purged, and don't know to notify the authorities or their users. I only found out because I'm thorough and checked site backups to see how far back the exploit existed.
One of the key tools of a Police State is to make laws that no one can avoid breaking, and make many of them. Then if they don't like you for some reason, say your political opinion or activism efforts, or exposing police corruption, they can simply arrest anyone for any reason and be sure to find a Don't forget, the FBI uploads child porn too. [sfgate.com] These are the URLs skiddies like to inject links to.
Now, I will pose this question: In a Post-Snowden world and post-COINTELPRO nation [wikipedia.org] wherein the NSA and FBI are known to covertly discredit dissidents and activists (from civil rights to environmental) and now have the powers to implant any computer system with any digital "evidence" they want, and where the NSA lies to both the Public and Congress itself, how can we possibly prosecute any charge that is brought against any citizen using only digital information stores as the evidence of crime? "Prove the NSA didn't do it", should be all anyone has to say now. Alas, no one (esp. a jury of average idiots) would believe being a tree hugger or making inciting observations about corporate greed impacting environmental issues would cause the government to attack you, even if we have public records showing the FBI has been doing such things since it's inception in 1908. In fact, if you try to bring that up in court you'll get held in contempt for grandstanding -- the same as if you bring up rampant Breathalyzer inaccuracies due to lack of maintenance.
Sadly, it's time to stop giving the government the benefit of the doubt. Also, never ever talk to police, ever. [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Friday June 12 2015, @05:10AM
They will argue that the fact that you deleted your internet history meant you knew you did something wrong and that you actively took a step to destroy evidence of having done it.
Now, prove that's not true.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 12 2015, @07:25AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday June 12 2015, @07:43AM
It should be. Except you've been doing criminal activity for a long time, and have learned how to cover your tracks.
You will wind up having to prove:
1) that you HAVE been doing it every week, not just last week
2) that you have been doing it for some reason other than to hide your criminal activity
The prosecutor probably wouldn't have to prove your intention, but let the jury infer the reason why you would delete the history.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday June 12 2015, @10:00AM
It's much worse than that. In order to pile on as many charges as possible, they want to add on things like "lying to a federal officer".
So they'll enter your house, take a snapshot of your browser history (even if it's harmless - perhaps especially if it's harmless). Then give you reason to clear it, by accusing you of whatever. Finally, ask you threateningly "you didn't clear your browser history, did you?". Which you reflexively deny - voila, a clear felony, because they already know that you did. Even if they can't prove anything else, they can get you on this.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Thursday June 11 2015, @08:35PM
In this case, the party realized their history was likely incriminating and attempted to cover it up using a one-time wipe. I don't agree with that law, but there was intent here (he "knowingly" destroyed information).
But what if the default setting is to purge history after X days? Heck, a lot of browsers do this routinely anyway. Then either we're all criminals for routine program behavior (your temp files got deleted, go straight to prison, do not collect $200) or this has to be permitted. Of course that prompts the question: instead of wiping the files, what if he had changed that setting to purge after 1 day instead of 30 and waited it out? Is it a crime to increase the security on your computer? Then conviction hinges on mens rea, or "what did he know and when did he know it," and conviction much more difficult even though it's effectively the same action.
(Score: 1) by jinuq on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:02PM
(Score: 2, Funny) by penguinoid on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:03PM
Maybe if they're not careful they'll pass an overly broad law that will outlaw any type of destruction of evidence, including the favorite of CEOs and politicians, court amnesia.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:06PM
I've used the 'clear browser history when closing browser' (under 'security' tab in 'options') with Firefox(and now PaleMoon) since that setting was available.
So I've been breaking this law every day(sometimes multiple times a day) for years before it was against the law.
Lucky for me, I also use FEBE, so my history of these 'illegal' settings is archived? or is it unlucky for me nowadays?
They would have to prove I was psychic to be able to charge me with this. Good luck with that. ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @08:36PM
A simple solution: Full disk encryption.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday June 11 2015, @08:48PM
A simpler solution - configure your browser to not retain history in the first place.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Archon V2.0 on Thursday June 11 2015, @08:56PM
> A simpler solution - configure your browser to not retain history in the first place.
And do the configuration in the presence of two witnesses and a notary public, so that a year from now if you're investigated for your cousin's murder spree you can prove you didn't make the change recently.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:19PM
A simpler simple solution - start using only a live CD and toss your hard drives into a volcano.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:25PM
A simpler solution - configure your browser to not retain history in the first place.
Which is completely legal, despite the clickbait article title. Deleting your history, monthly, would also be fine. As are email retention policies...
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation
Its almost like adding "with a computer" doesn't change the laws preventing people from destroying evidence pertaining to an investigation.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:35PM
The TechDirt article references this article, [simplejustice.us] which is fascinating and an actual example. It contains this snippet about an actual child pornography case (edited by me):
You're correct (and the court agrees) that intent is required. However, the court in this case held that the question of intent was a factual one for a jury. In other words, while you might be eventually found not guilty, you must be tried in a court in front of a jury, and the jury must find that you had no such intent.
In other words, there's no burden on the prosecution to prove (or, frankly, even suggest) intent prior to the trial in order for you to be indicted, held over (possibly on bail), and tried in criminal court for a felony.
Sure, it's nice that lack of intent is a defense, but that's WAY too late in the process for the question of intent to need to be so much as raised for anyone to feel comforted. Being arrested and tried for a federal felony crime is a VERY big deal.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:40PM
Sorry, also to be clear - in the example I cited in the parent, the person who destroyed the files was NOT the one who downloaded them. He's the administrator of a local church's computer, where he found evidence that someone else had downloaded pornographic images. Wanted to make it clear that this was NOT someone deleting evidence of their OWN actions.
(Score: 2) by draconx on Friday June 12 2015, @01:33AM
Well of course.
IANAL, but the judge's explanation is proper. A motion to dismiss is explicitly not for making judgements about what actually happened; but only whether the alleged behaviour was actually against the law. It is a motion basically saying "The state said I did X, Y and Z, but none of X, Y or Z are actually illegal so there is no point in this trial." In other words, it asks the judge to make a decision about the law itself, considering all of the state's claims at face value.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:51AM
If you do not like this, your only option is to have a revolution or leave the USA for a country that is an adversary or enemy of the USA. The USA is not your country, unless you are a white _woman_ or a rich person.
If that is not you, the USA is not for you.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:25PM
IANAL, but as I read it, full disk encryption is absolutely no help here.
If the browser history is stored on the machine, and is legitimately subpoena'ed, you can't just decide not to turn it over. The fact that it's encrypted doesn't relieve you of that obligation - decrypt it and turn it over. "Sorry, I lost the hard drive password" leaves you in the same legal position as having deleted it - the statute reads "Anyone who....destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up...." Concealment (behind encryption) is no more acceptable than destruction.
I'm sure you're getting at the fifth amendment argument that revealing your password can be construed as acting as a witness against yourself, and it may be the case that you can't be compelled to decrypt the hard drive for the police (if, for example, they're on a fishing expedition to see if you actually DO have child pornography on there).
Even if that argument holds (and it's still tenuous that it does), as I read it, they can STILL prosecute you here, because they don't have to prove you're guilty of the underlying crime to prosecute you for hindering the INVESTIGATION into whether you MIGHT have downloaded child pornography (by not turning over your browser history). The crime here is not in the illegal act, but impeding the ability to investigate the POSSIBILITY of an illegal act.
Come to think of it, this statute could be construed as making hard drive encryption a crime. "Whoever knowingly alters.. conceals, covers up... any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation... or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case..." It could be argued that encrypting a hard drive is altering (or concealing) the contents of a tangible object that MIGHT possibly be subject to an investigation at some point...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:01AM
Even if that argument holds (and it's still tenuous that it does), as I read it, they can STILL prosecute you here, because they don't have to prove you're guilty of the underlying crime to prosecute you for hindering the INVESTIGATION into whether you MIGHT have downloaded child pornography (by not turning over your browser history). The crime here is not in the illegal act, but impeding the ability to investigate the POSSIBILITY of an illegal act.
Making good encryption essentially illegal is itself unconstitutional. Same for punishing someone for not turning over their keys.
All law enforcement can do is make an attempt to get the information they want. Anyone who pretends they have some god-given right to be successful is out of their minds.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday June 12 2015, @02:44AM
like that would stop them. there are quite a few unconstitutional laws on the books right now. the NSA and DEA dragnets for one, the criminalization of any drug for another (if nothing else, the 18th amendment set precedent that drug criminalization requires a constitutional amendment), and those are just the most obvious examples. it'd be nice if laws were required to pass a constitutionality test before they could come into effect, but the way it works is they pass unconstitutional laws and then ensure their constitutionality can never be questioned in the courts.
(Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:04PM
Disable logging and caching wherever you can. It's not destruction of evidence of the evidence never gets created in the first place. I really wish this were easier. You can do it on *nix, it's nearly impossible on Windows. And whole disk encryption really ought to be standard and automatic by now to add another layer of protection.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @10:21PM
Firefox makes this simple, even on windows. Edit -> Preferences -> Privacy -> (Check) Always use private browsing mode.
Chrome probably does too, but I don't use Chrome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @11:24PM
Does windows still use index.dat aka spyware? I ditched winblows 12 years ago so don't know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @11:29PM
Oh, I see they still use it but it's called WebCacheV01.dat now. Winblows still blows.
(Score: 3, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday June 11 2015, @11:36PM
data gets logged, but just to the write-only device. after that, its not my problem!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:07PM
From the TechDirt article:
It seems to me it is no leap at all to apply this logic to encrypted data. I use whole disk encryption -- many people do. Presumably, the data on my drive is just drivel without the passphrase which I'm not required to give up under the 5th amendment. However, if I don't give up the password, the data is as good as deleted to an investigator -- at least that is the argument that could be made and considering the authoritarian trend in all branches of government, that argument would probably get a lot of traction.
This is really worrying. Comments above me are quick to say "oh, it's no big deal because these guys committed some crime" and so forth, but remember that we live in a country where the number of Federal crimes is uncountable -- literally unknowable (and ignorance of the law is no excuse -- Yossarian [wikipedia.org] would be deeply impressed): http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920 [wsj.com]
That our criminal code can be used as a means of repression rather than protecting society from bad actors, is nothing new, and for Federal prosecutors, it's all just a game:
If that doesn't terrify you when taken in recognition that most everyone commits a Federal felony on a daily basis, you aren't really thinking this out. http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 [amazon.com] Especially when we live in a country that assumes the right to execute people without trial for publishing anti-American youtube videos. http://www.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/ [salon.com]
(Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Friday June 12 2015, @01:40AM
It's nothing new. My sig in English: "Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, and I will find something in them that will hang him." They've been doing that since the days of good ol' Cardinal Richelieu.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday June 12 2015, @06:11AM
I count 7 lines there, Bro. You're pau (look for pau Hawaiian)
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @03:00AM
>considering the authoritarian trend in all branches of government, that argument would probably get a lot of traction.
Your only option is a violent revolution, obedience, or death/living hell.
If you do not like America, leave America, or overthrow America.
It's been done once before and tried twice.
(Score: 1) by BananaPhone on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:34PM
In the FarScape TV show, Litigaria was a planet whose population consisted of 90% lawyers and 10% oppressed "utilities." The lawyers had endlessly complicated the law in order to justify their own labors and worth.
http://farscape.wikia.com/wiki/Litigaran [wikia.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @10:41PM
The numbers are flipped for comedic effect, and you're missing the joke. In reality, the 10% of the population who are lawyers make life unbearable for the rest of the 90%.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday June 12 2015, @01:29AM
The only problem with that idea is that if a planet really were like that, they wouldn't get anything done at all, and they certainly wouldn't be technologically advanced enough to be contacted by other space-faring species.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:04AM
It's already a litigious society. Maybe that's why E.T. hasn't bothered with us.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:30AM
Just picked up and read a generally forgettable Robert Heinlein novel called Friday. There was one line in it that came after a lawyer went out of her way to smooth out a problem: "I guess some lawyers work to make things easier, the rest are just parasites".
(Score: 2, Troll) by Hartree on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:35PM
When Sarbanes Oxley was passed I said that it would get used in ways it wasn't intended. I was assured in discussions that it wouldn't and that I was actually just being an apologist for the corporations like Enron to loot the country.
I guess it's ok to criticize it now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:58PM
> When Sarbanes Oxley was passed I said that it would get used in ways it wasn't intended.
Like basically every law ever. If you expect perfection you guarantee failure.
> I was assured in discussions that it wouldn't and that I was actually just being an apologist for the corporations like Enron to loot the country.
Passive-agressive gloating doesn't do you any favors.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Hartree on Thursday June 11 2015, @10:56PM
It's hardly gloating.
I suspect you'd be fine with it if it was about a law you didn't like. And, yes, all laws have side effects. Some have side effects that were pointed out at the time they were passed. DMCA and crypto restrictions are notable examples of interest to this forum. Do you propose that no one be allowed to revisit those later as it's just "passive aggressive gloating"?
The law ends up being a bit like mathematics. If it's not specifically forbidden it's allowed. And some of the things that get allowed can be pretty bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @11:50PM
> Do you propose that no one be allowed to revisit those later as it's just "passive aggressive gloating"?
If the sum total of their revisting is "told you so!" than yes I forbid you from revisting any of them child.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Friday June 12 2015, @12:20AM
"child"
Yes, mother. ;)
If I'm your kid, you're at least old enough to have been in the Korean War.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:36PM
Boot-N-Nuke. Also I'm sure ISPs log every website you've visited.
(Score: 4, Informative) by mendax on Thursday June 11 2015, @10:37PM
There is a term I am very fond of, one that applies in this case: The law is an ass [phrases.org.uk]. I trust the venerable Charles Dickens on this point. He understood the law better than most laymen having worked with courts and lawyers early in his life. Read his novel Bleak House for a full description of his contempt of the law.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @11:06PM
but where are you gonna go?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @03:03AM
Russia, and then campaign to fight 'merica.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Covalent on Friday June 12 2015, @12:56AM
Honestly, if I had to choose between conviction for tampering / destroying evidence and possession of naughty photos, it's an obvious choice. The truth is that the government will get you if you make yourself odious enough to warrant their full attention, so your choice ls largely irrelevant. The only difference is that if you ever get out, you won't be on the sex offender registry.
The more I think about it, the more I realize the government is kinda like Sauron. Hideous, undeniably evil, bent on control, but not able to look at everything at the same time. Don't attract the attention of the eye...
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @06:44AM
The more I think about it, the more I realize the government is kinda like Sauron. Hideous, undeniably evil, bent on control, but not able to look at everything at the same time. Don't attract the attention of the eye...
Certainly gives a new meaning to "He's looking at you!" And with the internet spying you're right at the middle of his view. And everything you do is recorded for infinity and you're found naughty and placed on the COINTELPRO waiting list...
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 12 2015, @01:16AM
If only the BBC had been under a no deletion law back in the 60's, we'd get to see all the missing Doctor Who episodes and not just the ones that were saved by illegal copyright stealers......
"If only, hmmm, isn't that right Chatterton?"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:23AM
The lawmakers want to protect your rights. They do that by taking them away from you so you can't harm them. Poor rights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:43AM
America is a feminist, police state.
If you do not like it, there is only one way to change it.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @06:22AM
Nothing feminist about it - it's just a police state. But it's a police state full of freedom. Seriously - just ask any 'murican about how free they are.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wonkey_monkey on Friday June 12 2015, @07:40AM
Deleting Your Browser History is Illegal
Is it any more illegal than:
Shredding a document (unless that document is evidence of a crime you're trying to hide)
Driving a car (unless you drive it through the front wall of your ex wife's house)
could land you with a federal charge of obstructing justice
Really? But you just said "deleting your browsing history" is what's illegal, so why not simply charge people directly with that? Unless, of course, you're just trying to poke people's outrage buttons with your clickbait headline...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:48AM
I feel like this should fall under self-incrimination: you cannot be forced to incriminate yourself. You can't be charged with obstruction of justice for, e.g., refusing to talk to officers or refusing to show them the dead body in your garage. Likewise, you shouldn't be charged for not keeping your incriminating browser history.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!