Clearing your browser history could land you in prison

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by Circuit, Jun 13, 2015.

  1. Circuit

    Circuit Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Posts:
    142
  2. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,029
    At the point when one is deleting evidence, the game is already over.
     
  3. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,075
    "No judge, I wasn't deleting evidence, I was just removing garbage from my computer."
     
  4. Carver

    Carver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,827
    Location:
    USA
    I get dozens of spam on my computer which I delete, I didn't know I was deleting evidence of terrorist activity yorhonnor.
     
  5. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    This problem has an easy and legal solution. Configure the browser to never store history. You can't be charged with destroying something that never existed. If one was interested in experimenting with file permissions, making the file that stores browser history could produce some interesting results.
     
  6. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    1,957
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    When it involves terrorism, there is so much slack in the law after 9/11 that if they want to get you they will, no matter how far they have to stretch the law.

    In fact. as things have progressed/regressed post 9/11, one has to ask if there is such a thing as law that will protects US Citizens you from the Government.

    "Don't think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed."

    Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/dwightdei135161.html

    In the OP's Post the guy told police that he had dinner with a terrorist. He clearead his internet info for a reason.

    My advice is the next time you tell the police you had dinner with a terrorist who committed a heinous terrorism act on US soil, and lied about certain details sell your PC at a flea market or garage sale for cash.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2015
  7. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    There's a big difference between hiding or deleting evidence and not having evidence in the first place. I'd be very interested to hear what legal argument they could come up with to attempt to criminalize such a configuration. If they could do that, then every live CD that contains a browser would become illegal as well.
     
  8. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,029
    If they're playing by the rules, there's definitely a difference. It's quite common to have policies for records management.

    But all too often, they don't play by the rules. Or rather, they reinterpret the rules as they go.
     
  9. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    They definitely couldn't make such an argument in open court. Doing so would give credence to the claims that Windows and current browsers are built to spy on people. Unless they could drag you into a secret court on some type of terrorism charge, I think they'd avoid that argument.
     
  10. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    1,957
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    One argument is that because you knew that you knew these terrorists and invited them to dinner approx. 40 minutes after they committed an act of terror that destroyed lives and the lives of many families [ http://www.newsweek.com/khairullozh...-boston-bomber-pleads-guilty-lying-fbi-316539 ] you prevented possibly useful evidence from being created and stored on your PC and thus obstructed justice/an investigation. ["...Matanov 'deleted a large amount of information from his Google Chrome Internet cache' following the bombing, including 'references to the video of the suspected bombers [later identified as the Tsarnaevs],' "two of the photographs of the bombers released at approximately the same time,"......... http://pulse.ng/tech/sarbarnes-oxle...you-20-years-in-jail-in-the-us-id3847708.html. ]

    (In any event, the cards were stacked against him in Boston. He did admit lying to the police [ "March 24, 2015 - Khairullozhon Matanov plead guilty to misleading investigators" http://www.kpax.com/story/29320025/boston-marathon-terror-attack-fast-facts ],and in Boston this act remains a HUGE, traumatizing event. You have to have been born there and raised there, as I was, to fully understand the impact of this slaughter at The Boston Marathon on residents of New England. The Boston Marathon is the Biggest Annual Event in Boston. The Boston Marathon traditionally, is for the most part, held on Patriots’ Day, April 19, a holiday commemorating the start of the Revolutionary War and recognized only in Massachusetts and Maine.)
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2015
  11. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,029
    Look, he was friends with those *****, and so he was totally *****, pretty much whatever he did.

    He might have been safe if he had used Tails via public WiFi. But by then, he might have been tailed. And truly, nothing but full cooperation would have protected him. He had to pick sides, and he picked wrong, or he didn't pick fast enough.
     
  12. Palancar

    Palancar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Posts:
    1,594
    Although obvious, where we need to concentrate is on the privacy and security needed to keep them in the dark as to who/where we are. For my vote, I say work long and hard at learning the tunnels, vpns, tor, etc... to expert level. Once the knock on the door comes its "all uphill" from there.
     
  13. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    You combined the two issues. The issue wasn't the prevention of evidence creation. It was directly deleting evidence. Big difference between deleting the cache and not having one. By the standard you mention, using SandBoxie or moving the browser cache to a RamDrive is criminal. By that standard, my using Win 98 is criminal because it doesn't store the same extensive usage tracks that the current versions do.
     
  14. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    Not having a Cache in the first place is tops :thumb: Been doing it for years ;)
     
  15. kronckew

    kronckew Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Posts:
    210
    Location:
    CSA Consulate, Glos., UK
    obviously y'all have something to hide. you therefore are guilty. you obviously were motivated to learn how to avoid having your history examined. having no evidence by keeping none is proof you are a felon, a normal computer illiterate would have reams of recoverable files... you also were a known to have trash removed from your domicile on regular occasions, searches revealed you did not throw away any incriminating evidence, therefore you must have destroyed it. admit it and confess, or it's morocco for you.
     
  16. Tyrizian

    Tyrizian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Posts:
    2,806
    Now, what about for the people who use browser sandboxing (AKA:Sandboxie for security purposes), after all it doesn't retain browser history by default, especially those who choose to "Automatically delete contents of sandbox"
     
  17. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    That's probably why they want sandboxes built into browsers. The content gets sandboxed and deleted but not the history. If a freestanding sandbox ends up qualifying as tampering with evidence or its collection, where does a live CD stand? I can only imagine what they'd say about my system. No cache, no history, no shellbags, no MUI cache, no recent folders, no index.dat files, no temp folders on the hard drives, no open ports, nothing calls home, no usage tracks in the registry, no recycle bin, etc.
     
  18. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    689
    As usual, excellent posts noone. I love your concept of the ambulance at the top of the cliff rather than the bottom. IOW, an ounce of prevention is better than a ton of cure. The more components the browser "owns" the bigger the worry. Separate components that have their stand alone tasks is another way to compartmentalize.
     
  19. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,029
    That's why we're here ;)

    Anyway, as I say, it's important to appear normal. Or as normal as possible, anyway. Maybe just abnormal enough to seem normal.
     
  20. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    That applies to more than the browser. It should apply to every part of your security and privacy package. What good is a security suite if a faulty (or malicious) update crashes or disables the entire package? The functions performed by internet firewalls, HIPS, sandboxes, etc are critical to both your privacy and your systems security. They should not be bundled with other components or applications that have the potential to bypass them. Sandboxes and HIPS don't need internet access to function. Neither should be reachable from the web. These and the internet firewall don't require constant updating. They shouldn't be bundled with applications that do require it, like AVs. IMO, each should free standing and function independently of each other.
     
  21. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
  22. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    689
    Interesting reading. Thanks for posting. Plenty of smoke and mirrors in this report I think, complete with that typical smoke and mirrors term "conspiracy theory". What stands out like a beacon is what some of us have known for years... AV's by their very nature of how they work, must be regarded with the utmost suspicion. In the main, it seems the more you can work towards total local control, the better off you are.... assuming they aren't going to knock down your door, then that presents another story. I wonder how many people have become anesthetized to the same old horror story...the fact that Google Facebook M$ Apple etc are all snuggled up in the same bed. I don't believe any of these giants when they say they're working for our privacy. Moreover, I believe the rot set in long ago and they are only where they are today because it's by design.
     
  23. RockLobster

    RockLobster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Posts:
    318
    I have believed that for a long time and not limited to just the big 4 you mentioned. IMO it is widespread collusion probably decided at some secret meeting between the heads of all the big tech corporations and government.
     
  24. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    The exploiting of AVs should be old news. Who remembers Blue Frog Security and their "spam the spammers" software? Look up the details of the massive attacks that took them down and what was used to accomplish it.
     
  25. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    689
    That why I put in "etc" ...."the fact that Google Facebook M$ Apple etc" :) Indeed its not only the nasty nine or so they name all the time, but many many more besides. It absolutely is collusion, and what we have is a global dictatorship. There are so many wheels within wheels, red herrings, controlled opposition and so on, that people in their dumbed down state cant see the forest for the trees...not by accident but by design.
     
Loading...