Bitcoin Forum
June 27, 2024, 02:17:55 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: You Can Be Prosecuted for Clearing Your Browser History in US  (Read 1238 times)
Possum577
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250

Loose lips sink sigs!


View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 05:04:02 AM
 #21

I don't see anything wrong with this.

The Government can clearly make a case for the suspicion of this guy if he was dining with the two of them within close timing of their terrorist acts. Also, if he deleted his internet browser they could reasonably assume he may have been tampering with evidence.

I'm glad the Government doesn't fuck around when it comes to investigating people who associate with the people who bomb a city in the US. There's zero tolerance for that kind of activity...there should always be zero tolerance for it. Peaceful protests are fine, accepted, celebrated. Violent protests should be prosecuted heavily, make an example out of people who do that stuff.

There's always an option for people who don't like those rules...they could live somewhere else, where they agree with the rules.

TinEye
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 639
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:29:54 AM
 #22

they can't be serious about that i mean they can't even prove if i've done it or not, chrome don't keeps hidden files if you delete everything, i think, this also led me to remember that guy that was arrested because he was offending other users in a online gameplay, i don't remember if it was counterstrike, and since then they said that everyone that will do it, would be punished by the law, now they are adding all these stupid rules for everything that they consider bad, or not good, governments it becoming a dictator and nothinv else
and going abroad to avoid such tiranny is not really that easy, also many governments act in the same way, you will not find a good place where there is enough freedom



                                                                    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
                                                                   ▄█████████                  ██████
                                                                   ███    ███                 ██   ██
         ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████    ██████████████████████   ████████▀
        ██            ▄█          █▄                 █▄          ███            █▄          █        ▄██▀
       ██            ██           ███                ██   ▄▄▄▄▄  ███            ██   ▄▄▄▄▄  ██   █████▀
       ██   █████    ██   ████   ████   ██     ██    ██   ▀▀▀▀   ██    ██████   ██   ▀▀▀▀   ██   ████▀
      ██    █████   ██    ████   ████   ██     ██   ██          ███   ██████   ██          ██   ████▀
      ██            ██           ███   ███    ███   ██    ▀▀▀▀▀▀███            ██    ▀▀▀▀▀▀██   ▀▀▀████
      ███           ██▄            █   ██     ██    ██▄          █             ▀█▄          ██      ███
       █████████   ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
      ██           ██
    ██▀           ███
  ████████████████▀
blablahblah
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 775
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 09, 2015, 05:47:37 PM
 #23

remarkably—one count for destroying “any record, document or tangible object” with intent to obstruct a federal investigation. This last charge was for deleting videos on his computer that may have demonstrated his own terrorist sympathies and for clearing his browser history.

Matanov faced the possibility of decades in prison—twenty years for the records-destruction charge alone.


Ridiculous sensationalism.

and why should he prove something? is in US something like "the presumption of innocence" in place?
See to Snowden's situation, for example. Or simply try remember all these people, who were shot by the police officers.

Presumption of innocence de facto ceased to exist a long time ago. Currently people are guilty by default, that is the reason of mass surveillance and other idiotic actions.

Even the Russian propagandists are chiming in with the usual "but look at THEM!" tripe. Roll Eyes

The fact is that the vast majority of the various laws and tenets that are supposedly "under threat" or "critically endangered" in the US are highly reliant on a feedback loop of public faith in the system. A real problem that the US could be facing is if public cynicism reaches critical mass, because then society would self-destruct under the sheer weight of cynical bullshit. "This place is going to shit anyway, so let's just ransack it and then torch it." Right?

Ironically, if US society (and the wider Western society) does finally collapse, it won't be the "dull sheep" responsible for it, but the noisy cynics who failed to see their own role in making everyone else depressed and cynical.
defaced
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1011


Franko is Freedom


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2015, 11:43:22 AM
 #24

Clearing is prohibited, OK. Can I be prosecuted for faking my browser history? Grin

Faking the history should be quite easy, because the most of browsers are using SQLite, JSON or XML for history storage.

My question is, how the hell do they even know you cleared it, unless they have a copy of the original to compare it too?

Fortune Favors the Brave
Borderless CharityEXPANSEEXRAllergy FinderFranko Is Freedom
jaysabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1115


★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!


View Profile
June 19, 2015, 05:07:03 PM
 #25

Red is my response.

That's why the everyday American needs to get into common law. Common Law is law that comes into effect through the judiciary. The everyday American couldn't get into that if they wanted to. Common law only affects a person according to the things that are commonly done around him by the common people of his area. Nope, that's not what Common Law is. Just because you understand what the word "common" means doesn't mean you understand what Common Law is. Common Law is not simply law that has to do with common things.

If a person swings his court case into common law when he is accused of breaking any of the Code, the Code does not apply. Noooooooooooope.

The courts are tricky... They're really not. the judges don't generally want this to happen. Maybe judges don't want YOU to happen, because you make no sense and dealing with people who get up in court and babble incoherently under the guise of proving themselves innocent is probably really tiresome. This is why the whole direction that the courts try to get a common person to go, is the attorney route. This is not why. Why? You just explained why. Because there is a contract between the attorney and the defendant. You just said it was cuz the courts were tricky. Can't you just stick to one wrong explanation? And there is a contract between the attorney and the court. No, there isn't. Thus, the defendant has brought himself under the court and out of common law by the contract he made with the attorney. Nope. Doesn't even make logical sense, but assuming it did, still nope. You can't take yourself into or out of Common Law any more than you can take yourself into or out of the number yellow. That's because when you define a concept incorrectly, it loses all meaning. You still don't even understand what Common Law is as a concept, and so all the garbage you babble on about is just a made up version of a concept that doesn't exist.

Standing without attorney in American court, you have the right of common law. No, you don't. Common Law is the existence of laws that come into effect through the judiciary rather than the legislature. You don't have any right to Common Law any more than you have a right to the number yellow. You have the right to a 7th Amendment trial. (Trial by jury.) And in this trial, the plaintiff must appear, get on the stand under oath, and show how you harmed him or damaged his property. That has nothing to do with the 7th Amendment. The things you are naming are relevant to proving damages in civil matters and have no bearing on criminal matters. None of these things are relevant in criminal matters. You conflate civil and criminal court elements regularly and without apparent regard for how they operate, or how they are related to the 7th Amendment. There must be impartial witness against you. And there must be evidence. If any of these is lacking, you win. And if you get up there and babble on about any of this nonsense, you don't win.

Smiley  "Smiley"


bitnanigans
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 20, 2015, 03:00:31 PM
 #26

Guess we should always use incognito mode or private browsing mode in the US from now on.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!