General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYou Can Be Prosecuted for Clearing Your Browser History
http://www.thenation.com/article/208593/you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-historyIn 2010 David Kernell, a University of Tennessee student, was convicted under Sarbanes-Oxley after he deleted digital records that showed he had obtained access to Sarah Palins Yahoo e-mail account. Using publicly available information, Kernell answered security questions that allowed him to reset Palins Yahoo password to popcorn. He downloaded information from Palins account, including photographs, and posted the new password online. He then deleted digital information that may have made it easier for federal investigators to find him. Like Matanov, he cleared the cache on his Internet browser. He also uninstalled Firefox, ran a disk defragmentation program to reorganize and clean up his hard drive, and deleted a series of images that he had downloaded from the account. For entering Palins e-mail, he was eventually convicted of misdemeanor unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and felony destruction of records under Sarbanes-Oxley. In January 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that Kernells awareness of a potential investigation into his conduct was enough to uphold the felony charge.
At the time Kernell took steps to clean his computer, he does not appear to have known that there was any investigation into his conduct. Regardless, the government felt that they were entitled to that data, and the court agreed that Kernell was legally required to have preserved it.
Hanni Fakhoury, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the feds broad interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley in the digital age is part of a wider trend: federal agents feeling entitled to digital data.
Fakhoury compares the broad application of Sarbanes-Oxley in the digital realm to the federal governments resistance to cellphone companies that want to sell encrypted phones that would prevent law enforcement from being able to access users data. When the new encrypted iPhone came out, FBI Director James Comey told reporters that he didnt understand why companies would market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Big brother at its finest
msongs
(67,420 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)They stretched that one pretty thin.
Yeah the guy did wrong but yeah. They were out for him.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--it is criminal to destroy your browser history? Authoritarian bullshit is getting way out of hand on DE. AFter you are accused, it is an entirely different matter.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Sure, if you do something you know is wrong and THEN cover it up--but people delete histories all the time just to decrud their information universe.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)WillowTree
(5,325 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)then it is part of the crime.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)was used to extend and aggregate the list of charges. The deletion required an underlying criminal offense before it could be considered criminal in its own right.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It was to do with corporations deleting data en masse to cover up corruption. C'mon.
Yes the guy was an asshole or troll or hacker or whatever you want to call him but it didn't legitimately fall under Sarbanes-Oxley.
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)"cyber-housekeeping" is silly.
hack89
(39,171 posts)or whether it was a unique event.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)They somehow managed to apply it to an individual. Yes the guy fucked up and was a stupid "hacker" (he did nothing any journalist with protections couldn't have done). But this is a stretch.
hack89
(39,171 posts)but you have to think there were other ways to charge him if in fact he was covering up a crime.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)And the missing White House emails.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)backward.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Lets start charging Cops for erased videos.
Either on their own cameras or on witness cameras.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)What a clusterfuck. Hopefully a sane judge overturns this stupidity.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seems to happen with every law. Hell, look at RICO and all the gymnastics that get done with it every other week.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Surprises me the US places so high* on the corruption indexes.
It's stupid.
*high as in least corrupt.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Only for law passage
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It's a low point. Not sure how to counter it.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)SOX was written to go after corporations trying to cover their tracks. If they were able to get a conviction under SOX in this case, they could use any law to convict you of any thing. Stupid... but something I would totally expect from government prosecutors... just figured the judge would be smart enough to see the law being abused.
sP
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)IDemo
(16,926 posts)It merely re-arranges related blocks of file data together to improve hard drive performance, but doesn't delete or wipe it.
djean111
(14,255 posts)If you have lots of room on your hard drive, they will be there if someone knows how to get at them.
When you defrag, the blocks are likely to be re-arranged/moved over the deleted files, which REALLY deletes them.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)And it is free, and easy, and likely would never cause me to go Oh CRAP! if I used it before thinking things through.
I was a system manager for HPs and Tandems and IBM mainframes a while back, and I know that with great powerful software utilities comes the opportunity to yell Oh F**!!!! and hope desperately that your backup is a good one.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)Normally a low level utility for copying data from one drive or partition to another, it will ruin your day if you confuse source and target.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Personally, I love it, along with some other Linux commands.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)ie, overwriting fragmented / deleted data with random data. Impossible for even the NSA or CIA or any government agency to recover. There are dozens of tools out there to let you do this.
djean111
(14,255 posts)And - if you asked my grandson if he would rather go to jail for clearing history or risk having someone else look at his browser history - the answer would be jail.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Yes.
Say someone like a pedo hijacks the wifi of your router, then they come in and see your grandson did a full null wipe of his hard drive (maybe he did look at some naughty stuff and didn't want anyone to see it, innocent of anything truly bad). Under this utterly ridiculously broad interpretation, your grandson could be implicated. For simply wiping the drive of (legal) data.
I'm dead serious. This is a terrible precedent.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Odd to think people are jumping up and down about a watered-down Patriot Act - as if anything will change, ever. Big brother is in charge of us.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The "Freedom Act" is completely false. Sanders rightly voted against it. It's not, as Snowden argues, a move forward. It's a move backward.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)I also know how to clean all traces in my browser of a lot of things.
ann---
(1,933 posts)Obama's watch?
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)And cleaning your cookies is essential too.
Edit: this guy should have recycled his computer, if he was worried about being "looked in to".
Gman
(24,780 posts)I just read an article at Media Matters about how ABC News ran a story with the headline saying how Issa decried the State Department for redacting some of Hillary's email then in the second paragraph says the committee actually received unredacted versions.
This looks the same. You will not be prosecuted for clearing your browser history if you don't do it to cover up a crime. But this headline is misleading.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)Getting into someone's personal email is criminal.
Why do I think that if someone had done this to Obama or Kerry that everyone would be ready to throw away the key on this guy?
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)FSogol
(45,491 posts)police were investigating you is a crime? Who knew?
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)The hiding a body and gun is minor in comparison.
It's more akin to being charged with misdemeanor murder but felony hiding a body. It's backwards and an abuse of a law designed for financial crimes.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I also mount all temporary directories to a ram drive to conserve the number of writes to my ssd. Nothing is ever saved after a power cycle unless I specifically choose to save it.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)liberal N proud
(60,337 posts)Monk06
(7,675 posts)Sarbanes-Oxley has been abused so much it is almost never used for it's original intent.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I know they caught him by looking at raw server mail log files and spotting his IP address.
I think a good question to ask was the timing of when he deleted his browser history. He knew that he had broken in to her account, and that this was unlawful. And Yahoo was aware of what was going on the day he did it, and probably located his IP address that day or not long after that. So, I think he probably knew that investigation was coming his way shortly after the hack.
If Yahoo and the FBI had already gone through prosecuting him and doing everything and he did this months later, then perhaps he could argue that he didn't think his actions then would get in the way of an investigation then, if he had perceived it had already been concluded then. I have to believe though that they probably went through his computer after he purged these records shortly after the hack, which is why they went after him.
I'm guessing they probably wanted to make sure that he hadn't hacked others' accounts too.