Clearing your browser history can be deemed 'obstruction of justice' in the U.S.

CBC News ^ | June 9, 2015 | Lauren O'Neil

[2ndDivisionVet]

Next week, a 24-year-old man who knew Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev is scheduled to appear in U.S. Federal Court for sentencing on obstruction of justice charges related to the 2013 attacks.

Khairullozhon Matanov, a former taxi driver, did not participate in or have any prior knowledge of the bombings, according to U.S. authorities.

What could land him 20 more years in prison — where he has been since his arrest — are the charges that he deleted video files from his computer and cleared his browser history in the days following the attacks.

A Grand Jury indictment issued on May 29, 2014, states that 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," and "a photograph of Officer Sean Collier, who had been allegedly killed by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev."

According to the​ indictment, the FBI was able to restore some of the deleted information from Matanov's computer in "an ongoing forensic review."(continued)

[E. Pluribus Unum]

How can it be “obstruction of justice” if you do it before you are served with a subpoena?

[2ndDivisionVet]

Catch 22.

[MNDude]

And destroying your server that contained your state department emails?

[molson209]

CCleaner

[telstar12.5]

pre-crime baby, pre-crime

[E. Pluribus Unum]

He’d have been better off dropping it into the Charles River.

[Scrambler Bob]

Of course!

Continuing to breathe can be construed to be an Obstruction of Justice.

Breathe in — Breathe out — Breathe in — etc.

[2ndDivisionVet]

She’s an elite, so different rules.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

What server?

What emails?

[VTenigma]

Good, arrest Hillary.

[VerySadAmerican]

So, my hard drive crashes. I install a new one. Did I destroy evidence?

[Lurking Libertarian]

How can it be “obstruction of justice” if you do it before you are served with a subpoena?

The statute involved (18 USC 1519) does not require that you have been served with a subpoena. It does require that you destroy information "with the intent to impede, obstruct or influence" a federal investigation. According to the article, he has already pleaded guilty, so there is probably more to this case than the headline implies.

[ChildOfThe60s]

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

Ayn Rand

The future is now.

[tbw2]

It sounds like the solution is doing this regularly.
Then it isn’t destruction of evidence based on an event, but something you do regularly.

[Sherman Logan]

If I have incriminating paper documents and destroy them before I’m am served, I’ll go to jail. Why should digital documents be any different?

[napscoordinator]

Throw him in jail and throw away the key. We are not talking about a doofus sitting in his mothers basement looking at porn all day and decided to clear his history. We are talking both a terrorist enabler.

[central_va]

Always delete your image cache before your wife uses the pc.

[no-to-illegals]

you ‘suck’ nsa ...

[ChildOfThe60s]

there is probably more to this case than the headline implies.

There is.....in this instance.

But that doesn't change the intent of the law. Which is that it can be adapted to and used to get damn near anyone our rulers decide to get.

Remember, this comes from the same people that are going to make it a federal crime to discuss guns on the internet.