So the thing is that when people do computer forensics, anti-forensics actions stand out clear as day on the machine and it does come up in a lot of cases. If y

So the thing is that when people do computer forensics, anti-forensics actions stand out clear as day on the machine and it does come up in a lot of cases. If you have some activity on a windows machine you want to hide, your best course of action is really to destroy the drive. I think the feds essentially want to be able to "use" evidence of anti-forensics in court. This is actually reasonable, but the legal theory they're trying to do that with doesn't seem very suitable. While genuine signs of anti-forensics should be admissible as evidence, it's hard to see how "destroying records" on a private computer (not for business use / at work) should be an actual crime, in and of itself. Also, "clearing browser history" as anti-forensics is seriously a reach. I do wonder if there were other actions taken (over and above clearing browser history) that weren't mentioned in the article.