Can postings be used against us?

[Frank Ettin]

...For example this account is linked to a gmail email address,so that means it is a address that is free,requires no identification,or proof of who i am....

Except that by hypothesis, you are being investigated. The authorities will have gotten a search warrant and taken a number of things, including your computer. There they will find evidence of your gmail account and be able to link you to the gmail email address.

 

[rbernie]

For example this account is linked to a gmail email address,so that means it is a address that is free,requires no identification,or proof of who i am

Virtually ever internet forum will log the network address from which posts are submitted, and that alone will tie you pretty strongly to any given post - the email address has nothing to do with that. In addition, your PC will maintain forum account information and cached web pages.

Unless you use public computers and multiple anonymizers to hide your originating IP, everything that you do on the Internet is ultimately traceable to you.

 

[coloradokevin]

The internet is fairly accessible to the general public, even in areas where we more or less think we might have privacy. I don't ever see myself facing a jury from the defense table, but if such an unfortunate event ever occured, I don't believe that anything I've said online would work against me in court.

I try to behave on the internet in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the way I would behave if I was talking to a group of people in real life. Obviously things are a bit different online, but they shouldn't be so different that someone who reads your posts would draw a totally different conclusion about who you are (though, obviously there are more than a few posers running around on the internet pretending to be rich, or tough, or pretty, or old, or young, or crazy, etc).

 

[scottaschultz]

While not quite the same as using something against you in a court of law, I understand that many employers will see if you have a Facebook or Myspace account. Its probably not just an urban legend that some people out there have not been given a job because of what their potential employer finds on these "social network" sites..

Scott

 

[everallm]

@Rbernie,

My statements about inviolability of records, IP and MAC addressing, demonstrable audit trails etc weren't taken as hypothetical but out of a class action lawsuit which they moved to a criminal investigation where I was one of the SME's.

The issue started as a discrimination lawsuit where as part of the e-discovery and forensics trail it became apparent that apparently supporting statements had been posted on an external web board.

Opposing counsel built this as a strong supporting element showing a pattern of abuse which lasted until it got to court.

I demonstrated that, amongst other issues

The web board was running both an operating system and application with numerous well documented security flaws at both the access and privilege escalation level

The board administrator accounts had the ability to alter, amend, insert or delete postings for other users as the user.

The audit mechanisms for security events were not turned on

The posting records of IP addresses could only demonstrate the relevant records came from a non US public proxy server AND were capable of manipulation by an admin level account.

The daily backup of the data was incremental not full backup and could not capture intraday changes.

I had enormous fun picking apart their presentation from Kroll......

 

[AirForceShooter]

Just Google your screen name.

AFS

 

[PT1911]

I see little way there could use it against you as there could be no direct proof that it was in fact you who wrote the post. This site does not require you to prove who you are in any way other than to type your name. Anyone can clame to be you. If you use public computers on top of that (reasonable doubt), there is no way to have it used against you...

 

[stevehps]

thats exactly what i was saying,thank you pt1911

i am glad that you agreed,thats all i was trying to say. thank you.anybody can hide thier tracks if the have enough computer savvy. i have been a telecom technician and install and progaram phone systems,set up up cat5 networks and voip for 17 years. i dont want to say anybody is wrong about anything they have posted,i am sure you must have some knowledge of what you are posting or else you would not make the post or reply.

some could sit in front of starbucks all night,even after they are closed with a laptop and use wireless internet from there,or in wataburger,or even mcdonalds. they can even do it from there house and never be detected.

also to become a member of almost any internet fourum and to get a email address from any number of providers all you need to have is the ability to type. you can even run your browsing thru a proxy server that is in another country then back to here where it looks like you are 4,000 miles away. as long as there are people writing software there are people hacking it. it is sad but true.

the police would almost have to bust in on someone at the comperter doing the crime to have "non questionable solid evidence" to prove they are the guilty one.(that is probably a exagerration of the the bottom line,im sure they could do it more conclusive and professional than that).


please like i said i dont want to get anyone uptight or angry,just expressing my 2 cents.

 

[Kleanbore]

I see little way there could use it against you as there could be no direct proof that it was in fact you who wrote the post. This site does not require you to prove who you are in any way other than to type your name. Anyone can clame to be you.

Based on what detectives whom I know have told me, and on advice I have received from attorneys, I wouldn't bet a sno-cone on that strategy.

Consider for a moment attempted extortion or mail fraud. "Can you prove that I typed that letter on that Underwood? Anyone could have claimed to be me. Anyone could have used that kind of paper." How well do you think that worked as a defense in the old days?

There's your computer ID, there are IP records, there's writing style, there's consistency with other verifiable information....and people who used computers in the library have been convicted of crimes around here.

Not pure conjecture here--there are well known and not so well known cases of once well respected persons who have been later known by their prisoner numbers who were once supremely confident in their defensive strategies.

I'm personally more familiar with situations involving the use of email and electronic files on company servers. However, things like Facebook and Myspace are getting people into trouble these days.

 

[stevehps]

kleanbore

yes there is all of the above as you mentioned. And yes there is all that everybody has mentioned. If we must keep referring to twitter, myspace, and facebook, and google as our proofs of finding incriminating evidence on people, then so be it.

Twitter, myspace, and facebook are social meeting places for people to make new "cyber friends", most of the time the users are hoping to potentially maybe meet someone with the chance to making spark a new relationship on a face to face meeting. So people will tend to be more truthfull, they might not be 100% truthfull, maybe a exxageration of small details, or a ommittance of others.

they will put pictures with captions, they will send friend request, they will chat about things that are personal,maybe even give phone numbers and make request to meet. dont laugh but i met my fiance on a webcam site.

when people communicate via instant messengers you are directly link computer to computer. thats why if you are using messenger to chat with some they should be someone you know. if you ever use messenger chatting with someone and you get a request to chat from someone who you havnt the slightest idea who they are dont answer, dont even reply. If you do you just opened your computer to them, they can get any personal information from you the want,simply be copying all of your tempfiles,and showdowing your registry.

they can put your tempary files in the appropriate folders on there computer and use your internet history, your temp files, cookies, and certain elements out of the showdewed registry and "become you".


now lets move on to google. personally i think google was designed to assist hackers and pirates. google has a ability to gather information off the web much similar to the "key word recognition" that is used by big brother goverment. ever heard of google alerts? it is a built in funtion of the google search engine to gather any information that is sent to servers, ip addresses, web sites and web pages, any domain that is sending or receiving data.

it can be used to get username and passwords to web sites and web domains.all you have to do get the login domain address, type it in to google alerts, pick one of the types of encryptions you want it to listen for, how often you want to be notified, and what email address you want it to sent to.

you can choose real time notification, hourly, daily, weekly, whenever you want it.there are no records stored on your computer of the information being sent, unless you utilize the info by going to the web site and logging in. then after you are thru with the website and information simply go thru and erase registry entries,visible and hidden temporary files and noone will every be able to find evidence in your computer of anything you ever did. yes the police find incriminating things in peoples computers all the time. but if it is there for police to find, then that means it is there for others to find and it can be erased. just like the goverment does when they get rid of old computers. everything about computers operating systems are cookie cutter design. everything has its folder, everything has its particular function.

when average joes use computers for mischief and for just just surfing the web for any number of reasons, and dont use "precautions" then yes there will be evidence left, and yes they could find out exactly where the area of the computer was used based on the i.p address. this is given true about tracing a i.p. but damn near impossible to find the exact place or home it was used at.

most providers issued i.p addresses and then they set up or assign the addresses to certain areas, for example how area codes, and zip codes are. then they have i,p stacks that are within them. when someone gets internet service thru a provider, for example charter cable, they receive a modem that has a address programmed into it that is assigned to the physical address and subcribers account. a user could then simply thro that modem away,go to best buy, purchase a after market cable modem, hook it up, run the i.p config function built into operating system release the computer from current i.p address, flush the cache, and then renew it to the next available i.p address in the i.p stack. this process is not illegal, it is not traceable, nor will it leave tracks on the computer to be found that cant simply be erased.

just a small example of how hard it is to find internet pirates, and sources ofcriminal activity unless they done their research and located the computer in real time surveillance........ya ready EBAY!!!!!!!!! Thats right everybodies favorite place to get a good deal. thats why scammers have blossomed everywhere, because they use simple proxy servers ,ip shifting, and simple readily available programs and software, free tools that are just floating around in the world wide web.

well i hope this gives you a lil insight on how it is achieved.

thx pt1911 and everallm

 

[rbernie]

The board administrator accounts had the ability to alter, amend, insert or delete postings for other users as the user.

The audit mechanisms for security events were not turned on

The posting records of IP addresses could only demonstrate the relevant records came from a non US public proxy server AND were capable of manipulation by an admin level account.

The daily backup of the data was incremental not full backup and could not capture intraday changes.

And all that is certainly true and wonderful, but it's not likely that you'd find every site's logging mechanisms so easily repudiated. From my viewpoint, relying upon immature site setup and administration seems a poor strategy to avoid legal responsibility for submitted content.

But it's your call.

 

[CTGunner]

In the original post I was not asking for ways to get around the truth i.e. asking if someone could deny what they posted. If a competent LE agency wants to find the person behind internet posts I am certain that they can and will.

I am asking about what is admissible and what is not specifically when a posting or postings are not directly related to the case.

Simple example: Can a prosecutor say "Mr. Smith has over Five Thousand posts on a gun related forum. I'll let you, ladies and gentleman of the jury, draw from that whatever conclusions you think appropriate."

Now the jurors are thinking - wow, there is something wrong with this guy. How could anyone make five thousand posts about guns?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Yep. Soon to be ex-wife is attempting to do exactly the same thing in the divorce. Her lawyer actually sent copies of web pages to my lawyer and was requiring that I certify that those postings were mine.

I said no way under the 5th amendment was I going to certify anything that they think can be used against me. We actually had to file a protection order against their request and we are waiting for a hearing from the judge. That little action runs the legal costs up about $500 for me and about $750 for her.

However, she will still be able to enter the web pages into the trial, but the burden of proving they were my postings is on her. Let's see, how many LT's are there in the Navy? Thousands? It wasn't gun related, btw.

Vindictiveness and insanity make for horrible combination in the same person.

 

[ants]

I ain't no attorney, don't even pretend to be.

I ain't no attorney, the real counsellors among us will have to educate us on the Rules of Evidence.

As a juror, I've generally seen opening remarks and closing remarks in which the trial lawyers sometimes take a little license to express themselves and suggest things that might or might not be supported by evidence. In between the opening remarks, the lawyer himself/herself cannot be the witness and give evidence to the jury. The protocol is to present evidence in the form of testimony by witnesses.

So the anwer to your question, CT, from a regular guy like me: Yes, it would appear that your record on the internet may be raised in testimony by some witness. Probably not the lawyer himself, but by a witness called to the stand. And yes, it does seem to be fair game to present evidence to make the jury think something nasty, whether it's true or not. If it's not true, your own lawyer needs to rebut it effectively during the trial.

 

[Kleanbore]

Simple example: Can a prosecutor say "Mr. Smith has over Five Thousand posts on a gun related forum. I'll let you, ladies and gentleman of the jury, draw from that whatever conclusions you think appropriate."

???

Would the fact that a defendant in a homicide case subscribed to a gun magazine, or belonged to a gun club, have any real relevance to his trial?

From the standpoint of mens rea, I should think that prior postings to the effect of "once a BG has entered my yard, he's toast" or "I'll make sure mine is the only story" would be potentially relevant and likely damaging.

From the standpoint of impeaching credibility, something like "I shot the ____ --- no one has the right to touch my truck" could make testimony such as "I feared for my life" a little less convincing, don't you think?

And then, even if for some reason certain posts do not meet the standard for admissibility, they may lead investigators to evidence that does. Suppose there is suspicion of premeditation; a post or two indicating that the defendant had reason to hold a grudge against the decedent could point the way toward facts that could be damaging to the defendant's case.

The best advice so far: do not post or email or commit to paper anything you do not want made public. That includes potentially damaging or embarrassing statements, account numbers, days on which you will not be home, you name it.

 

[stevehps]

kleanbore

please make another post, anywhere, please you are at 666 post,bad juju there..........lol

just trying to bring a lil humor to lighten every one up some.


to the op sorry,but it does look like we all got off the path of your question some . sorry

 

[justice4all]

Yes, they can be used against you, if the are 1) relevant, 2) more probative than prejudicial, and 3) authenticated through the laying of a proper foundation.

 

[KenWP]

The postings can be used against you so it seems. People tend to believe things in print and the same on the internet.

 

[mustang_steve]

The world is less private than some of you think. You'd be amazed at what you can find out using one piece of info. Intellius, go there and pay for a check on your name.

edit: for example, I did a search of my name from the last state I lived in, it even listed a family member as "stepehen f----", which was a typo I made when creating a profile on pioneering social networking site in the mid 90s. It even lists residences from my childhood.

 

[benminer]

There they will find evidence of your gmail account and be able to link you to the gmail email address.

Not necessarily. There are free programs that make it virtually impossible to determine where a computer has been if properly installed on said computer.

They might be able to prove that A computer from this IP address visited this website on this date but they would not be able to prove specifically it was THIS computer that they have in custody.

edit: For the extremely rich and paranoid, you can get a motherboard that fries itself if the boot password is entered wrong too many times (Best Buy does not carry these), and there are plenty of privacy programs out there that use 256-bit AES encryption and would literally take billions of years to brute force. All the investigators would be left with is a bunch of burnt chips and heavily encrypted files.

 

[Kleanbore]

They might be able to prove that A computer from this IP address visited this website on this date but they would not be able to prove specifically it was THIS computer that they have in custody.

And you somehow believe that that would be sufficient to disallow evidence?

...you can get a motherboard that fries itself if the boot password is entered wrong too many times (Best Buy does not carry these), and there are plenty of privacy programs out there that use 256-bit AES encryption and would literally take billions of years to brute force. All the investigators would be left with is a bunch of burnt chips and heavily encrypted files.

Not long ago a person near where I live completely destroyed his computer. He was later convicted of having possessed unlawful images (some years prior) on the basis of remote server files.

 

[Kleanbore]

There have been a number of opinions offered here. Those from people whom I know to be lawyers advise that there is indeed some risk. Some others have opined that because there is the possibility that server data may be subject to alteration or that source identification may be called into some question, , the evidence could not be properly authenticated and therefore would not be admitted.

Some years, ago I had to take a course on the authentication of electronic file data for use as evidence. I worked in a financial department in a large corporation then. The importance had been made greater due to the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOx"), which covers public financial reporting and related audits and internal controls.

The course was framed to cover the impact of a SCOTUS ruling on forensic evidence (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (92-102), 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). This ruling applied in Federal cases, but it can be important in a state trial: a number of states have adopted the Daubert rules in lieu of the earlier Frye rules, and some states have their own.

Here's what little I think I remember:

• There are processes, controls, and protocols that have to be in place to ensure admissibility of electronic data. That was all IT stuff.
• While in all data systems there are admin capabilities, etc., that permit people to change and overwrite files, and provisions for other adjustments, if the proper things are done, the evidence will be admissible.
• In a court case, either side has the riight to question the people who operate and maintain the systems.

I have no idea how the systems on which these forum postings reside are operated, maintained, or controlled, or by whom, but one more time, I would not bet a sno-cone on being able to prevent the admission of unfavorable postings in an important trial on which my future depends.

And even if the data were not admitted (pardon the ungrammatical sentence structure), there could be an impact on pre-trial processes such as charging and indictment, and the postings could lead to other, admissible, evidence.

Be careful out there.

 

[mustang_steve]

benminer, if you are truly untracable, then you are unreachable as well. That program you described only masks IPs, there's another factor that's more specific, the MAC address. these are network device specific, and no two are alike.

There is a way to spoof a MAC, but only a very small percentage of computers have this ability. Home routers have it though. However, that MAC is often logged with your ISP, so they will figure it out.

This is all based on the computer knowledge your average geek squad technician will have, which is fairly low on the I.T. totem pole....so any decent online investigator would still have a good lead if he's thinking on his feet.

 

[benminer]

Consumer grade routers do not log the internet site that each MAC address on the home network visits. It only logs that this MAC address connected to the router for this amount of time on this date, and most only keep those logs for a short length of time. To the outside world, all traffic looks as though it came from one place and there is no way to tell specifically what computer on the network was doing it.

In most cases, at least those I have read, the suspect admits to possessing whatever it was they shouldn't have had so it's irrelevant whether or not they can prove it based solely on computer records.

This is really off topic though. If the government is determined to get you for something you posted or downloaded, or use it as evidence against you, they will just make something up.

 

[Kleanbore]

If the government is determined to get you for something you posted or downloaded, or use it as evidence against you, they will just make something up.

???

Now, how would a county prosecutor "make something up" regarding a series of potentially damaging internet postings and employ it effectively and unchallenged in a homicide trial?