We are offered warned against making careless comments on a public forum because they could be used against you in a court of law.
My question is, what else in my daily life could be seen in the same light? ....
Let's take a slightly different approach. Consider what evidence is admissible in court. Of course every State has its rules of evidence, as do the federal courts. But they are all pretty similar, so I'll look at the Federal Rules of Evidence (which apply in both civil and criminal matters).
Basically, any relevant evidence is admissible (Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 402):
Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:
- the United States Constitution;
- a federal statute;
- these rules; or
- other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.
Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
So what is relevant evidence (Rule 401):
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
And the problem is that the question of relevance can't be considered in a vacuum. It depends on what happened, what the case is about.
So essentially, anything I do or say, or I've said or done, is possible grist for the mill.
And among other things, things like intent, premeditation, prejudice, malice, or state of mind can be, and are, proved with all sort of evidence, including circumstantial evidence.
Also, law enforcement and prosecutors know all about social media and have been learning to use it effectively. See
this article headlined "Bay Area prosecutors increasingly using social media posts in criminal cases" from the 16 August 2013 edition of the
Contra Costa Times:
PLEASANTON -- A teenage driver originally accused of vehicular manslaughter now faces a murder charge in the death of a bicyclist, partly because prosecutors say he bragged on Twitter about driving dangerously.
His case is part of a growing trend of social media posts being used as evidence against suspects, authorities said Friday.
....
As suspects feel compelled to post their misdeeds online for audiences to see, investigators have taken advantage, using the online quasi-confessions to bolster their cases, Bay Area prosecutors said.
In San Francisco, a cyclist in March fatally struck a 71-year-old pedestrian in a crosswalk after speeding through three red lights in the Castro District. Chris Bucchere, who eventually pleaded guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter, received a stiffer charge after he posted his explanation of the crash on a cycling group's website....
Don’t share personal information online.
If you don’t give out your username, then nobody else will know anything....
Except --
- If you're likely to be prosecuted for something serious, among other things the police will often be able to get a warrant to seize your computer.
- And having done so, why wouldn't a prosecutor get assistance from the owners or moderators of a social media site?
- A prosecutor has tools to "compel" assistance. Non-compliance with a subpoena or search warrant can have some pretty undesirable consequences. Moving in court to quash a subpoena or search warrant is not cheap or certain, and one can't necessarily expect an uninvolved third party to fall on his sword over a subpoena or search warrant for some "stranger's" information.