CLPEX Chat Board

There have been recent references on this site about not providing information on the posting individual’s identification (individualization?). This is interesting as this site has always tolerate anonymous postings. I would hope there is some sort of ‘backdoor’ moderating of posts, but I do not know as a number of somewhat vicious postings from ‘cloaked’ individuals have been allowed.

Why would it be of interest to evaluate information about a posting if a legitimate contact was included in the post? There can be many, but some are:

Experience level of the individual?
Areas of professional experience?
Agency level of the individual?
Professional (if any) organizations?
Professional contributions (if any) by publications and presentations?

These are important for a reviewer to assess the value of any contribution.

Why do participants remain anonymous?

Do not want their agency to know they are involved in ‘discussions’ (which may be in conflict with agency policies).

Do not want their professional organizations (if any) know they are involved in ‘discussions’.

Do not want to be held accountable for comments.

Individual is not professionally competent to contribute to a discussion (which could be exposed by clear identification).

This can be addressed by individuals taking responsibility for their comments by providing clear and accurate contact information or the site administrator requiring proper documentation.

I AM Ernie Hamm and you can find me at many places.

Ernie,

Your thoughts are expressed well.

I can only speak for myself as an anonymous poster that there are two reasons why I do so.

1) Anything you say on this website, or any other for that matter, can be used in a court of law. When I expressed this a year or more ago, Lisa Steele disagreed and cited reasons why. But you only need to read Pat Wertheim's transcript from the McKie inquiry to believe it can be used, as he had to retract/apologize numerous times for false internet speculation on this site regarding latent print XF.

2) My agency considers everything I do as a reflection on them and can also use what I say for disciplinary purposes.

Now I'm sure you're asking why do I feel the need to post anyway. I usually only post when I read someone's comments that I know to be a lie or are intended to unfairly cast suspicion over a particular person or event. I don't name call. I merely point out "inconsistencies," sometimes angrily I'm afraid.

I would ask that everyone who is against anonymous posters not lump us together.

As for your credibility litmus test, I don't believe it is necessary. Most readers of this forum know who is credible and who is not. The ongoing unprofessional behavior by some of those who post anonymously and some of those who post using their name tells everyone about the quality of their character. I would encourage readers not to read these posts as they only degenerate to what has been said on this site ad nauseum.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

opop raises two good points. On a slightly different note, this website is not nor is it trying to be a forum at the same level as a peer reviewed journal. I see it as an informal portal for group discussion. That being said, I dismiss ad hominem attacks for what they are. Otherwise, I evaluate comments on the site based upon their inherent strength. The same I way I evaluate all written material.

Sometimes I think the software should automatically append a disclaimer to every post.

"For Entertainment Purposes Only."

Opop brings up some great points and why I understand the anonymity issue:

1) I too have had posts shown to me in court and presented for me to read to the court. So repectfully also to Ms Steele's position, this board is a "can, could, and probably will" be used against you. I am however a member of some private discussion groups where all members have agreed what is discussed will not be public. I am curious if Ms Steele has some legal views on that, where all members agree, a priori and formally declare as part of membership, to not share with non-members. How does that legally work? Is there any legal entitlement or is it merely a "gentleman's/gentlelady's" agreement.

2) Agency positions. I have some real problems with this and opop hit it on the head. The best example for me is the FBI. They aren't "allowed" to post (I assume there is a policy or something actually stating this about public comments need to be passed through management, spokesperson, legal, etc...but regardless, they do not post). However, they do read the forum (this is for you guys since I know you can't post it). I think that's total crap.

I think that it's crap, because an agency in the U.S. like the FBI is looked to for guidance, input, leadership, and their views and experiences. Not allowing the freedom to exercise their personal judgment, restraint, professionalism and share their input on a public board like this is really silly. And it says something to the community about leadership. To be clear, those comments are not directed at the analysts (or even most management). It's silly beauracratic policy. Like I said, I know they read this (typically off hours and it's not even part of their normally allowed "work duties") and so I am saying it for them.

Furthermore, I think it's insane that agencies expect their people at all times to be representing the agency, the agency policy, wearing the agency hat, etc. I was always impressed by Steve Meagher in this capacity; I was always impressed that he was one of the few LP Bureau folks that would take his FBI hat off and say what he actually thought on something or say more than he was probably allowed. I always respected that, even if I disagreed strongly with him on some issues.

It is insane to me, that as scientists and free thinkers and individuals supposedly able to represent professional opinions and scientific viewpoints that we have to run things through LEGAL and our SPOKESPEOPLE. I get liability and I get not wanting embarrassing comments out there, but when I look at the University system and how those people at many government funded institutions are free to share their views and thoughts and have diverse opinions, sometimes even offensive to some people, I see how far we are from being independent, scientific professionals.

Here is one issue that really sticks in my craw and I am not sure the NAS ever really hit on it in the "separation of law enforcement and science" recommendation. It seems like in moving towards a true culture of science, we should be allowed more freedom at our agencies to share our viewpoints, no matter how different or radical they might sound.

Just sharing my thoughts here. My agency tends to be pretty good about these things...but I could also see a time when suddenly a policy maker decides to have a general rule like the FBI...all it takes is one person to scare "LEGAL" with their "CONCERNS"...

Oh well, and then I guess I will just become another anonymous poster too!

g.

g. wrote:1) I too have had posts shown to me in court and presented for me to read to the court. So repectfully also to Ms Steele's position, this board is a "can, could, and probably will" be used against you. I am however a member of some private discussion groups where all members have agreed what is discussed will not be public. I am curious if Ms Steele has some legal views on that, where all members agree, a priori and formally declare as part of membership, to not share with non-members. How does that legally work? Is there any legal entitlement or is it merely a "gentleman's/gentlelady's" agreement.

Some of the legal listservs have, as a condition of membership in the listserv, a contractual obligation not to disclose any information on it to those outside the list. Even then, we are all sensitive to issues regarding attorney/client confidences in how much identifying material is given out when a question is posed. That's not going to bind a court, but might make it less likely that a post shows up in court. (Note the contractual rule does not supercede testifying under oath and copying with legitimate discovery requests.)

I've had odd experiences with CLE talks showing up on websites and one prosecutor out of the blue asking me about a book I'd reviewed on Amazon (I was testifying as an expert in appellate procedure in that case), so stuff can show up in the oddest ways.

I found the underlying post:
http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f= ... rsay#p1495

This is a hearsay problem -- the nature of it is going to depend on your jurisdiction (UK law is different from US, federal and state laws differ). Authentication, relevance, and common sense are still good guidelines in thinking about these issues.

Let's assume that Poster A says "X". Attorney wants to ask Witness B about what A said, A is not a witness in the case. I'm not a trial attorney, but my gut sense is that the trial judge isn't going to allow a simple -- "B, are you aware that A said X, what do you think?", but might allow something akin to a "B, are you aware of anyone who says X?" -- things then would get interesting if B says "No".

Let's now assume that A is on the stand. Attorney says "A, what do you think of X". If A gives a not-X answer, attorney might attempt to cross with a post as a prior inconsistent statement. "A, have you ever said X". A might say "yes" and explain, either then, or in re-direct. If A said "no", likely A would be offered a copy of a printout of the post, allowed to read it and asked if it refeshed A's memory. Then asked again, have you ever said "X".

How long this goes on depends on how relevant the post is to the case. I would be surprised to see a printout of a post marked as more than an ID exhibit (for the record, not for the jury), tho that woudld be case specific.

I see the anonymous option as a necessary part of an open forum. Given the realities, the alternative would be a closed forum with all sorts of caveats (probably unenforceable, since there's no compensation or formal ethics rules) about disclosure. And with a closed forum, folks aren't going to find it openly by happenstance via search engine or whatever and would not likely get in unless invited or vetted in the usual way of closed groups, which can't be wholly anonymous. And one of the things I value about this open forum is the diversity of viewpoints. They are all part of the discipline's landscape, and without hearing some of the responses, even (or especially) the expressions of opposition or outrage, I'd be seeing even less of the range of players and viewpoints and less of a feel for the state of the discipline. We're already at risk of imagining that the participants here are some sort of cross-section of examiners and interested parties. That's surely not the case, since only those sufficiently interested or intellectually curious will bother, and there are legions of examiners who don't engage in this sort of thing or follow developments at all. (Of course, very little on the Internet is truly anonymous to the technical management, should they wish to find out, which I'm pretty confident they refrain from doing.)

Besides, aside from technical commentary that one or another participant would not like public, most of what prompts complaints about anonymity amounts to what we call in the country "pissing on each others' feet," and it doesn't in any way really influence the conduct or outcome of matters being argued about.

opop wrote:
...you only need to read Pat Wertheim's transcript from the McKie inquiry to believe it can be used, as he had to retract/apologize numerous times for false internet speculation on this site regarding latent print XF.

Anonymity may well have saved Pat the problems he experiences with XF, however I would have thought that somebody of his standing within the fingerprint community would have known better than to engage in such compromising speculation (which continued even after he had given contrary evidence to the inquiry) whether done under his own, or an assumed name.