Are you worried that everything you say and do on the Internet is being watched or recorded?

Yes, it didn't take too long to figure that out.
That's why, when I visit the Guardian, Youtube, A2K, even, there are advertisements about "Melbourne mum's secret for youthful skin ... 55 years old & she looks 30!", or Australian travel agency deals, etc, etc ...
(to be fair, the A2K ads are of a much more generalized variety ... quite a few of the ones on other sites are very home-town or personal interest specific.)

Luckily I haven't indulged in any internet behaviours of the risqué or wildly extravagant variety!

Long ago I understood not to post anything on the internet (email or other) that I wouldn't want to share with people I spend my (actual not online) days with. And I don't. Besides, ages ago (on Abuzz) I chose a username that would make me easily identifiable in the community I live & work in. .... I don't want someone who employs me to discover that I think they're a nincompoop or a little Hitler, or something .... ha!

It sometimes concerns me that people who would be very easily identifiable (their own photographs as avatars, etc) are so incredibly frank about details of so many aspects of their lives (professional or private) online.
But perhaps I am overly cautious .... or overly private?

As to worries about financial exploitation, potential legal ramifications, stuff like that ... nah.
I am nowhere near interesting, important or wealthy enough for any of that, even if I did post more details!

Over at another site I frequent, they have an ad window just before the comments start. All sorts of ads show up.

The other day, my Honey Do list was headed with "Fix the leak in the kitchen sink."

So I looked on the Internet for the schematic of the faucet...a Moen.

For the next week...ALL THE ADS IN ALL MY VISITS...were for Moen faucets and parts.

It happens.

The only thing that worries me is the drag queens finding out where I live.

Ha!
And you have good reason to worry!

I went to the Romney site to get an image of his logo.

I was telling someone how bad of a logo it is -- look, he's three people in one! red, blue, and a nice wishy-washy white in the middle.

Now Romney ads follow me everywhere I go. Argh.

Yep one of those drag queens is 6'4 and that's whithout the heels

Your posts are refreshingly candid, damn the consequences, I'll grant you that, jc!

God knows everything anyway - eternally frying in hell will be much less pleasant being demolished on the witness stand.

I am who I am.

Mrs Hinge once mentioned on Facebook one of our dogs was sick. Next day she got a bunch of pet accessories spam in her work account. There is no link between facebook and her work - it's not in her profile, she never accesses it from work, - so some bot was matching firstname/lastname pairs with lists of email addresses and every Mrs Hinge in the world got the same spam.

Speaking of drag queens

And I once did a search for Michelin tires and visited a couple of sites. I did not contact any dealers nor post on a2k or any other social site. The entire bottom of my screen was decorated with their advertisements till I cleared history and deleted cookies a few months later.

I was tempted to respond to your post.
This thread it ego-centric. I don't fear having my utterances
quoted back to me.

What u described is a 21st Century extrapolation of the lawful technique
of challenging a witness based on "prior inconsistent statement" wherein,
on cross exam, adverse counsel asked something like:
"Sir, is it true that last Thursday u told Joe Blow
at Joe's Bar n Grill that u did thus and so. . . " wherein he contraidicts
his own testimony on direct exam, or if u have access to his published writings
wherein he contradicts his testimony on direct exam, u question him about that.
Q.E.D. use of a witness' writings on the Internet or in a letter to his mom,
is 1OO% paradigmatic use of evidence.

OBVIOUSLY, that applies to expert witnesses,
but the same principle of the law of evidence applies to lay witnesses too.





David

I've "swum in the pool." In the early 1970s, i worked in a hospital in which i was the only representative of administration on the 3-11 shift. I testified, or was prepared to testify in several cases. Later, i was a witness before a grand jury. Later still, in the late 1980s, early 1990s, i worked in a family shelter, and testified or was prepared to testify in several child endangerment cases.

In one case for the hospital, defense counsel came to see me before the first hearing date, and quizzed me. I told him the same thing every time, and he couldn't shake me. Finally, i told him i had work to do, and that if he wanted a deposition, he should contact hospital administration so that i could be paid while providing his deposition. When it came to the hearing, he plead to a lesser charge for his client, and agreed to his client paying damages. He did that because he was prepared and knew that i'd be a good witness before a judge or a jury, and that he couldn't rattle me on the stand. I'd swum in the pool before, you see. So he plead to avoid the expense to his client of jury trial which he would probably lose anyway, and cut the best deal he could--because he was prepared.

In the grand jury testimony, no one from the DA's office had contacted me, no one had interviewed me or taken a statement. Essentially, they were relying on a cop who was saying that the complainant must have been hit with a bottle, that being the only way to account for "all the blood." When i got before the grand jury, and was asked when i saw a bottle in the accused's hand, i said i had never seen a bottle in the accused's hand. Asked what i thought accounted for "all the blood," i said that i was no expert, but i expected it was due to the glasses the victim was wearing. They finished with me pretty quickly. As i left the court room, the DA was glaring at me, and made a couple insulting remarks, so i asked if he intended to bring me into disrepute. He hurried off to his office, and one of his hangers-on apologized saying no libel was intended, and that i would likely not be called again and could go now. The DA was not prepared and what he was really pissed about was a nasty surprise he got because he wasn't prepared.

In a child endagnerment case in in 1989, i was sitting in the court room, and the guy from the DA's office came over, spoke to me cordially and asked if i wasn't the witness for the shelter. I told him i was and he politely asked to speak with me for a few mintues. I went into an office with him, told him what i was prepared to testify to, and showed him the record i had made immediately after the incident which had lead to defendant's children being taken away, and charges laid. He thanked me and we retuned to the courtroom. Defense counsel arrived (late), looked around and then asked me who i was. I stood up and gave my full name. She then said "That's right, i spoke to you." I said: "No you did not, i've never seen you before this morning" and then sat down. The prosecutor smirked, defense counsel had a conference with him, and when the judge arrived, she plead out for her client to get the best deal she could. She did so because she was not prepared.

Expert testimony may be a slightly different circumstance, but it does not alter that attorneys need to be prepared. If they are not, their client's case is going to suffer, whether their client is the People or a defendant. You've contradicted yourself, anyway. You said attoneys have staff who handle these matters. If the case is sufficiently important, especially if it potentially involves large sums of money, a well-prepared attorney is going to be using that staff to check his own expert witnesses just as opposing counsel would do.

It's called being prepared.

I thought that the best way is to use VPN

Long ago, at a lecture on trial practice,
I asked successful, noted trial lawyer, Louis Nizer
for his best advice on the subject.

He answered: "Be prepared."





David

I didnt contradict myself at all. My discussion was initially revolving around what attornies for the other side will do to impeach witnesses . Under the newer Daubert rules an expert is limited and has a greater responsibility for his or her actions than he did under the older Frye rules.
Then when you made the comment about how a lawyer on your side wouldnt find out as much about you as possible at theoutset, I tried to clarify the point that few attornies would necessarily waste money to "get the goods on you" until your opinion was known. They really have no idea where the track is taking us until the major points are fleshed out in detailed research. The attornies then have ample time and resources to skewer you if they can..

SAInce mnany of these claims and pollution cases can go on for years, finding out what the opposing attorney has to play with to impeach your opinion usually waits till the opinions are even available. In sveral cases, my attorneys didnt flash me as a witness until discovery was almost over.

Spending lots of money to impeach a witnesses credibility isnt always needed and when it is, it is done with a vengeance.
You havent really "swum in the pool" because you havent presented anything under the newer Daubert rules. Before Daubert, experts were kinda free wheeling and your opinion was sought not even if it wasnt consistent with your full expertise. Like your offering an opinion as anything but an eyewitness (regarding how a victim got cut). Under DAubert, you wouldnt even be extended that opportunity because you didnt establish your credibility. SO you wouldnt be an expert , you would be an eyewitness , period .No lawyer would be so stupid as to extend questions to you by opening into an area that he didnt already know what youd say. The snide remarks are all part of the business of tearing you down if you take em personally and try to give a stand up response, you could ruin a clients case with a careless outburst of deep cleverness.
I dont think that you would make a good witness, in all honesty set. You have a habit of quickly getting passionate and oft times thats a killer on the stand. You also would have to limit your answers to only the question asked. When you and I talk, If we ask one another the question "What time is it", You have a habit of telling me how to build a watch. (NOW DONT GET PISSED , ITS AN HONEST EXAMPLE AND YOU KNOW IT).
. Im afraid that many "experts" will shop themsellves arounnd and will pre-impeach themselves by not disclosing certain things up front, and they get quickly angry when confronted. Those kinds of guys dont last long and I dont see them but once or twice. The really useful expert has a limited range of skills and these are clearly defined and the expert has a background that doesnt conflict in any way with his expertise. AND you appear dispassionate even when you may be up for a Nobel prize in an area

However, as I said, (and in no way was that conflicting). The rules of evidence also allow much more freedom to opposing counsel to challenge you and "bring you down as a witness". Most of that deep web stuff on me is investigated during my expert report prep in prepartaion for my depositions. The level of information asked when I first accept an assignment is less strict and merely prevents us from all going down the wrong path with me.

Ive backed off several assignments because , mostly, I was already on record with a conflicting opinion. Thats up to me to be perfetly honest, and that would be found out early in my assignement (AFTER the attornies even divulged who their expert is-cause they dont have to divulge your name up front).

Ive only been invloved in bout two cases a year for the last 25 plus years and some years Ive only been involved in one. Ive been involved in cases that ran on for 10 years or more and the evidence rules had changed in mid stream.(going from Frye rules to DAubert rules).

MAybe one of our attornies can shed some real light on this. MY own rules are not to forget what Ive said in the past and make sure my opinions dont conflict (Unless of course science changes).

As the original topic brought out, several of us whove been involved in cases are sensitive to what errant properties that I may present to opposing counsel that he may be able to use against me. HAving all these things like FAceBook or being regularly involved in social connections beyond stuff like A2K (which is a knowledge forum that only occasionally gets socially involved), is a potential stake in the heart to someone who regularly goes to court under contract.

I dont shop myself as an expert, I usually only get involved as an expert in cases in which Im already working on a related project (or mine site), or in the case of pollution dynamics, in cases in which Id been recomended by someone invloved in the leagl end.

I get presented many more cases in a year and I turn down most because (mostly) I have a conflict that would come up. THATS ME MAKING THE DECISION. MAny experts blithely go along and they shop themselves even in cases that their expertise is limited or if they have conflicts. Thats still not the deep stuff that would come out later when the experts opinion is intertwined ith his entire career experience.
.

Tor network is a free and super way of covering your track however it can be slow at times as you are bouncing around the world three times.

I have been used in several cases on pollution in coal country and was in the court of a famous justice in Philly Fed District. He was a pistol. Hed butt in and question everone in a case. He took a witness apart himself when the witness professed to be a licensed surveyor and he wasnt. ALitoThe judge slammed into him as wasting the courts time and he "Hoped that his services werent continued"
Now that was a case where the lawyers , up front had not done ANY of their homework. Finding out that you have all the credentials you claim is easy and is always done up front. The real stuff is when you have a chance to present your opinion and your past associations or conflicting positions tend to crap up your credibility about several particluar points.

I am familiar with the concept and its used a lot by many. But VPN can be easily cracked if the desire is there