On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:31:01 -0800 (PST)
billol...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:36:12 AM UTC-5, unman wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:15:54AM -0600, John Goold wrote:
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > Hash: SHA256
>> >
>> > On 2/6/19 1:12 AM, 'awokd' via qubes-users wrote:
>> > > kitchm via Forum:
>> > >
>> > ...
>> > >> It is currently illegal by federal law to clear your browser
>> > >> history.
>> > >
>> > > Cite?
>> >
>> > What one does with one's browser history, even assuming one's browser
>> > has a browser history, is clearly not governed by law, except perhaps
>> > in countries like China and Russion.
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >
>> > iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEe8Wcf7Po7bts2Rl4jWN9/rQYsRwFAlxbCDgACgkQjWN9/rQY
>> > sRwFfQf+MRGgCma20R/XDSkO0X94ul0kb8p/GfUBQbw7/bbdNKXtawkUtzGqe44I
>> > IExLLsikRRTdHGIMvHVpBXNjQGm2Qh6MdL4v+cd/CN2vtj5Yh2ifk5OF5xt5hb0A
>> > EX+8EYoo5GoF+2urI3IU6NTKBL0tCDiKIcjVIMuxg9ah0mo1QTO5+ewlX5AGlyLS
>> > c2dVDHB3svCIKQ9xrHZxcNLL3WKL6lrOwP/oGuM6NLGJtnBDbS7ihkJA1GMu7m5H
>> > 3hHQFq7vb8/6vNf6L8jqC3MPDbp/zXXwCk1UjLofnbUX+ExVDKPZF43qI8yMiGwN
>> > UkdsgfCZfIQjh1jKGDXhJ2/xyhySvw==
>> > =zjDq
>> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> Actually, it may be governed by law in the US, but not in Russia.
>> The FBI have interpreted Sarbanes-Oxley as creating a
>> felony offence where one deletes browser history where there was
>> reasonable expectation of investigation.
>> It has been used against Matanov, a friend of the Boston bombers, and
>> David Kernell, who hacked Sarah Palin's email.
>> The EFF have highlighted this interpretation of Sarbanes Oxley as
>> egregious, but no doubt the authorities deem it necessary.
>>
>> Note that it is NOT illegal in the US to clear your browser history:
>> but it may prove a felony offence to do so. In the two cases cited there
>> were reasonable grounds to suppose that a federal investigation would
>> take place.
>
>It should probably be noted that those 2015 prosecutions were a bit novel, and
>it has not become common practice. In fact, the Supreme Court reigned it in a
>little with Yates v US (2015) in which they threw out the conviction of a
>fisherman who threw away an illegal catch to avoid prosecution.
>Sarbanes-Oxley was written for corporate stuff, to stop corporations from
>deleting emails and shredding documents in order to hide a crime that they
>knew would be, but had not yet been, moved forward for prosecution. The
>application of this to conspiracy to commit terrorist acts is not too
>far-fetched, but its application was novel, and was not tested in appeal as
>far as I know.
>
>In terms of private citizens engaging in routine privacy measures, I know of
>no such prosecution. Sure, an aggressive DA can charge anybody with anything
>for any reason, and some pay no attention to truth, precedent or law at all.
>But if someone has a case of someone as a private citizen who routinely cleans
>up their files, I'd love to see it.
>
>Since Oxley Sarbanes requires the intent to interfere in the investigation of
>a criminal act, it would seem to me that a private citizen who routinely
>cleans house for privacy reasons while not engaged in such acts would have an
>affirmative defense that continuing to do so does not indicate such specific
>intent. For instance, as I mentioned, a professional organization I belong to
>does not archive its mailinglist specifically to avoid people mining archives
>to look for embarrassing quotes for use in the newspapers and in court. The
>intent there is clearly *not* to cover up a crime, but instead to protect
>privacy. I'm no lawyer, of course, but I find it hard to generalize the idea
>that Oxley Sarbanes is that huge of a threat as it currently is enforced.
>
>I'll also point out that if anything were this kind of violation, then the
>Hillary email stuff would have been ripe for prosecution under this law, and
>the DoJ clearly said that the presumption is that there isn't criminal intent,
>at least with respect to that kind of behavior. I suspect that most
>prosecutors know this, which means that egregious overapplication of this law
>will be unlikely, else it will be repealed -- since most Republicans hate the
>law as it stands and are looking for an excuse to get rid of it.
>
Sarbanes/Oxley certainly has given me and a lot of other consultants...and
auditors...a lot of work. :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"qubes-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/20190207133636.00eef430%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
