4 ms·

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the prosecution, their tactics or the charges, but this article is sensationalist to the point that you could change the

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the prosecution, their tactics or the charges, but this article is sensationalist to the point that you could change the headline to "emptying your trash could land you in prison". > prosecutors argued that he made a conscious choice to destroy materials he knew could be used in a future investigation. See, that's the point here. If he had happened to have (say) VHS tapes or even handwritten notes of those sessions, and he had thrown them out after the bombing, he could have been slapped with the same charges. The primary difference here is that emptying your browser history leaves a telltale sign, while chucking out some physical object does not. Also, this article is conveniently omitting the fact that he also pled guilty to three counts of essentially lying to the FBI: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/26/the-fbi-is-trying-to-destroy-my-life.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/26/the-fbi-is-... Remember kids, don't talk to police. Ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

j42 11y ago
The timeline listed in the source he provides clearly states that he made an effort to "delete files [...] reformat his computer" after the events, indicating knowledge he could be implicated as an accomplice. That said, I think using the "mens rea" argument associated with implicit guilt is how dangerous precedents are born. I'm specifically concerned with this excerpt from from Sarbanes-Oxley act which is being misappropriated by prosecutors: >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. Deleting videos and attempting to reformat a computer after the Boston marathon are done knowingly. Clearing one's cache/browser history is in many situations an automatic action, and it's troubling to find it lumped in with pre-meditated action. I see justification for 3 counts of obstruction, not 4. The 4th looks like an attempt to set the modus operandi of the courts in dealing with our web/online history, and I don't think anything which draws attention to that is necessarily a bad thing...
- tedunangst 11y ago
  > Clearing one's cache/browser history is in many situations an automatic action Article says "he doctored his browser history" which sounds less automatic.
  - gherkin0 11y ago
    > Article says "he doctored his browser history" which sounds less automatic. Or the writer could have been trying to introduce verbal variety and as a consequence ineptly misrepresented what happened. The link[1] immediately after "doctored his browser history" only mentions "deleting files/data" and "reformatting": [1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/30/timeline-alleged-activities-khairullozhon-matanov/sF4n3bB6HDWGgeUWzeTyhN/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/30/timeline-allege...
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      Seems like there's a lot of worry about the precedence this case sets, but not a lot of detail about what actually happened.
      - j42 11y ago
        I'm sorry, I should have provided the source in my original post. Pages of interest are 9 and 10: SOURCE: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ma/legacy/2014/05/30/Indictment.pdf http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ma/legacy/20... It states (item 40), paraphrased, that he deleted his internet cache and also browsing history selectively, which was used to reason that he was attempting to hide his philosophical similarities with the brothers. I take issue with item 43: ---- By deleting his Internet cache and other files, MATANOV obstructed the FBI’s determination of his Internet activity during the night of April 18 and the day of April 19, 2013, and the extent to which he shared the suspected bombers’ philosophical justification for violence, among other topics of interest. MATANOV’s deletions have thus obstructed the FBI’s investigation of the bombings and the suspected bombers, and have caused the FBI to expend considerable additional resources during its investigation of the bombings and the suspected bombers. ---- This man is clearly guilty, and the other evidence is damning. That said I cannot ever see validity in the argument that clearing history of access to publicly-accessible records online definitively indicates obstruction, or "malicious intent." Localized browsing history should be considered more ephemeral than user-stored files, because otherwise where is the line drawn? Could you be charged in 2018 for not leaving your computer in a cold enough climate for encryption keys to be recoverable from RAM? Possibly, because without those you'd cause the FBI to "expend considerable additional resources during its investigation." I say this because the application of that reasoning doesn't discriminate between individuals actually trying to defraud (e.g., this gentleman) and those who are privacy conscious. It has chilling and unintended consequences, and those shouldn't be ignored when the case can absolutely be made without this assertion.

j42 11y ago

The timeline listed in the source he provides clearly states that he made an effort to "delete files [...] reformat his computer" after the events, indicating knowledge he could be implicated as an accomplice. That said, I think using the "mens rea" argument associated with implicit guilt is how dangerous precedents are born. I'm specifically concerned with this excerpt from from Sarbanes-Oxley act which is being misappropriated by prosecutors: >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. Deleting videos and attempting to reformat a computer after the Boston marathon are done knowingly. Clearing one's cache/browser history is in many situations an automatic action, and it's troubling to find it lumped in with pre-meditated action. I see justification for 3 counts of obstruction, not 4. The 4th looks like an attempt to set the modus operandi of the courts in dealing with our web/online history, and I don't think anything which draws attention to that is necessarily a bad thing...

tedunangst 11y ago
> Clearing one's cache/browser history is in many situations an automatic action Article says "he doctored his browser history" which sounds less automatic.
- gherkin0 11y ago
  > Article says "he doctored his browser history" which sounds less automatic. Or the writer could have been trying to introduce verbal variety and as a consequence ineptly misrepresented what happened. The link[1] immediately after "doctored his browser history" only mentions "deleting files/data" and "reformatting": [1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/30/timeline-alleged-activities-khairullozhon-matanov/sF4n3bB6HDWGgeUWzeTyhN/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/30/timeline-allege...
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    Seems like there's a lot of worry about the precedence this case sets, but not a lot of detail about what actually happened.
    - j42 11y ago
      I'm sorry, I should have provided the source in my original post. Pages of interest are 9 and 10: SOURCE: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ma/legacy/2014/05/30/Indictment.pdf http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ma/legacy/20... It states (item 40), paraphrased, that he deleted his internet cache and also browsing history selectively, which was used to reason that he was attempting to hide his philosophical similarities with the brothers. I take issue with item 43: ---- By deleting his Internet cache and other files, MATANOV obstructed the FBI’s determination of his Internet activity during the night of April 18 and the day of April 19, 2013, and the extent to which he shared the suspected bombers’ philosophical justification for violence, among other topics of interest. MATANOV’s deletions have thus obstructed the FBI’s investigation of the bombings and the suspected bombers, and have caused the FBI to expend considerable additional resources during its investigation of the bombings and the suspected bombers. ---- This man is clearly guilty, and the other evidence is damning. That said I cannot ever see validity in the argument that clearing history of access to publicly-accessible records online definitively indicates obstruction, or "malicious intent." Localized browsing history should be considered more ephemeral than user-stored files, because otherwise where is the line drawn? Could you be charged in 2018 for not leaving your computer in a cold enough climate for encryption keys to be recoverable from RAM? Possibly, because without those you'd cause the FBI to "expend considerable additional resources during its investigation." I say this because the application of that reasoning doesn't discriminate between individuals actually trying to defraud (e.g., this gentleman) and those who are privacy conscious. It has chilling and unintended consequences, and those shouldn't be ignored when the case can absolutely be made without this assertion.