5 ms·

> as part of an effort to thwart a criminal investigation Correction: a criminal investigation that didn't happen yet, might never happen, or might happen say

by raquo 11y ago

> as part of an effort to thwart a criminal investigation Correction: a criminal investigation that didn't happen yet, might never happen, or might happen say 6 years from now. And you'll be guilty regardless of whether this investigation targets you or someone you just happened to interact with. And regardless of whether the investigation results in other charges or not. And regardless of whether your potential evidence even matters in the investigation. I don't think a government should hold such power over any person. SOX was targeted at corporations, the fact that it is used on other targets is a demonstration of how overreaching it is. Combined with the alarmingly common practice of threatening innocent people with 20 year sentences until they plead guilty, this is a very dangerous precedent.

otterley 11y ago
> Correction: a criminal investigation that didn't happen yet, might never happen, or might happen say 6 years from now. I'd recommend reading the Indictment. This wasn't that sort of case. This was a case where the accused knew the Tsarnaev brothers, had communicated with them electronically, and made and received several phone calls to and from them after the Boston bombing and they'd been announced as suspects. Under those circumstances, it was highly likely the FBI would come to him seeking evidence, and if the facts alleged are true, the defendant's behavior in this case looks very sketchy indeed.
- raquo 11y ago
  This guy was scared that the FBI will come after him and decided that he didn't want to provide them with information that they would likely use to threaten him with 100 years of jail time regardless of his actual involvement. Is that decision so exceedingly unreasonable that he needs to spend 20 years in prison for it? Keeping in mind that he has no obligation to create or retain the records that he deleted in the first place. Mind you, I don't like this guy at all, and he does look sketchy as hell, but he is not even charged with knowing about the attacks. He is guilty of simply being afraid of the government. And the worst thing is, most people don't even know that SOX applies to them as persons.

by raquo 11y ago

otterley 11y ago

> Correction: a criminal investigation that didn't happen yet, might never happen, or might happen say 6 years from now. I'd recommend reading the Indictment. This wasn't that sort of case. This was a case where the accused knew the Tsarnaev brothers, had communicated with them electronically, and made and received several phone calls to and from them after the Boston bombing and they'd been announced as suspects. Under those circumstances, it was highly likely the FBI would come to him seeking evidence, and if the facts alleged are true, the defendant's behavior in this case looks very sketchy indeed.

raquo 11y ago
This guy was scared that the FBI will come after him and decided that he didn't want to provide them with information that they would likely use to threaten him with 100 years of jail time regardless of his actual involvement. Is that decision so exceedingly unreasonable that he needs to spend 20 years in prison for it? Keeping in mind that he has no obligation to create or retain the records that he deleted in the first place. Mind you, I don't like this guy at all, and he does look sketchy as hell, but he is not even charged with knowing about the attacks. He is guilty of simply being afraid of the government. And the worst thing is, most people don't even know that SOX applies to them as persons.