4 ms·

Where there's plenty of cases out there but I'd ask you why you think that opposing counsel attempting to violate attorney/client privilege is ethical?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 7y ago
If there are "plenty of cases," then cite one. You're making the accusation. Provide the basis.
- chrischen 7y ago
  Perhaps if this is a courtroom in a trial, but he is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to do research for you. All information he provides is free and under no warranty to be correct. Think of it as a pro-bono donation of the truth (from his perspective of course). It is up to you, or the reader, to choose to believe him or not and the information he provided is already more than he is obligated to give to enrich your life with. It is, as you put it, a “good place to start” if you wish to google more yourself.
  - torstenvl 7y ago
    No. It is up to the proponent of a proposition to offer evidence of its truth. Perhaps those with no legal training should be the ones Googling, since many here clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
    - chrischen 7y ago
      There is no oxygen in space (any area reasonably far from a planet). My lack of citation does not make it any less true. And if I were to try to convince you of that fact it would be simply for your benefit. Think of any comment by anyone here as someone graciously providing you with free counsel out of the time of their day, with the big disclaimer that they are not your client, and that the information is under no warranty. This disclaimer is implicit on all internet comments. It is up to you to consider their claims, and verify them. If you’re not willing to research their claims yourself then it’s pretty clear that 1) you’re just here to argue for one side to the public (aka propaganda) 2) pursuit of the truth is not actually your goal Given that your profile states that you are both part of the military and also a government lawyer may indicate that both 1) and 2) are true. I think you’ll be hard pressed to convince people they are wrong simply by accusing them that they are wrong due to lack of evidence. There is no court here, no jury to decide you win or lose. You can contribute more to this discussion by offering your unique perspective given your background.
      - torstenvl 7y ago
        It is impossible to engage with someone's mistaken position without clarifying that position. As a result, I asked which rule they thought was violated. Since they are unwilling to even explain their reasoning, it is simply not possible to engage with them productively. Instead, people make it personal (like you just did with your accusation of propaganda) and go completely off the rails instead of answering a very simple question. This entire thread has fallen well short of the expectations of intellectual curiosity and genuine good-faith debate expected on HN. Shame.
        chuckgreenman 7y ago
        You claim to be a lawyer, so I would assume in good faith that you understand that ethics and laws are not an inclusive set. If we approach this honestly and openly we see the following: Adding a tracking image to an email takes work, and their needs to be a reason to undertake that work if we assume the prosecution is a rational actor. So, what are some reasonable hypotheses about why someone would undertake that work? 1. In a charitable reading of the situation the tracking image is just there to determine if the email has been opened. 2. The prosecutor is attempting to gain information about the composition of the defense team, journalists and their sources. Considering the inciting incident was that a confidential source reported that a lawyer was not doing their job, and that tracking pixels tend to be automatically added to all of your sent emails, it lends credence to the hypothesis that this out of the ordinary image was an attempt to gather information about someone. Why would someone in the legal arm of the Navy want to track down someone involved with reporting misconduct in the legal arm of the Navy? Possibly to preserve their job or the job of their colleague by conducting a reprisal, with in the judicial system or outside of it. There are reputations and careers on the line. Folks are known to be quite protective of those. Attempting to discourage reporting of misconduct inside the government is unethical. A reasonable person can follow this chain of logic and see what happens, you seem fixated on the letter of a regulation rather than the spirit of our defense of a press that holds people accountable for their actions. If you were actually engaging in an intellectually honest discussion, you may bring up points that show why you think tracking down the source of the leak was important, or that it is standard procedure for military lawyers or lawyers in general to track email opens. Instead you've chosen to focus on the lack of a written prohibition of pixel tracking in a code of conduct written for lawyers, enforced by state bars that don't have jurisdiction over military lawyers.
  - jhhh 7y ago
    If you don't like him just say so and move on. Trying to rationalize and then justify non-substantiation in an argument by playing this burden of proof shifting metagame wastes everyone's time. Just because you dressed up your assessment in this snide court language doesn't make it any better.
- dariusj18 7y ago
  I agree with you that many people in this thread are talking out of their asses, but as a thought experiment, would it be unethical for an Prosecutor to plant a tracking device on the car of a Defense attorney? Is there a legal difference between that and attempting to track the behavior of the Defense attorney online?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

torstenvl 7y ago

If there are "plenty of cases," then cite one. You're making the accusation. Provide the basis.

chrischen 7y ago
Perhaps if this is a courtroom in a trial, but he is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to do research for you. All information he provides is free and under no warranty to be correct. Think of it as a pro-bono donation of the truth (from his perspective of course). It is up to you, or the reader, to choose to believe him or not and the information he provided is already more than he is obligated to give to enrich your life with. It is, as you put it, a “good place to start” if you wish to google more yourself.
- torstenvl 7y ago
  No. It is up to the proponent of a proposition to offer evidence of its truth. Perhaps those with no legal training should be the ones Googling, since many here clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
  - chrischen 7y ago
    There is no oxygen in space (any area reasonably far from a planet). My lack of citation does not make it any less true. And if I were to try to convince you of that fact it would be simply for your benefit. Think of any comment by anyone here as someone graciously providing you with free counsel out of the time of their day, with the big disclaimer that they are not your client, and that the information is under no warranty. This disclaimer is implicit on all internet comments. It is up to you to consider their claims, and verify them. If you’re not willing to research their claims yourself then it’s pretty clear that 1) you’re just here to argue for one side to the public (aka propaganda) 2) pursuit of the truth is not actually your goal Given that your profile states that you are both part of the military and also a government lawyer may indicate that both 1) and 2) are true. I think you’ll be hard pressed to convince people they are wrong simply by accusing them that they are wrong due to lack of evidence. There is no court here, no jury to decide you win or lose. You can contribute more to this discussion by offering your unique perspective given your background.
    - torstenvl 7y ago
      It is impossible to engage with someone's mistaken position without clarifying that position. As a result, I asked which rule they thought was violated. Since they are unwilling to even explain their reasoning, it is simply not possible to engage with them productively. Instead, people make it personal (like you just did with your accusation of propaganda) and go completely off the rails instead of answering a very simple question. This entire thread has fallen well short of the expectations of intellectual curiosity and genuine good-faith debate expected on HN. Shame.
      - chuckgreenman 7y ago
        You claim to be a lawyer, so I would assume in good faith that you understand that ethics and laws are not an inclusive set. If we approach this honestly and openly we see the following: Adding a tracking image to an email takes work, and their needs to be a reason to undertake that work if we assume the prosecution is a rational actor. So, what are some reasonable hypotheses about why someone would undertake that work? 1. In a charitable reading of the situation the tracking image is just there to determine if the email has been opened. 2. The prosecutor is attempting to gain information about the composition of the defense team, journalists and their sources. Considering the inciting incident was that a confidential source reported that a lawyer was not doing their job, and that tracking pixels tend to be automatically added to all of your sent emails, it lends credence to the hypothesis that this out of the ordinary image was an attempt to gather information about someone. Why would someone in the legal arm of the Navy want to track down someone involved with reporting misconduct in the legal arm of the Navy? Possibly to preserve their job or the job of their colleague by conducting a reprisal, with in the judicial system or outside of it. There are reputations and careers on the line. Folks are known to be quite protective of those. Attempting to discourage reporting of misconduct inside the government is unethical. A reasonable person can follow this chain of logic and see what happens, you seem fixated on the letter of a regulation rather than the spirit of our defense of a press that holds people accountable for their actions. If you were actually engaging in an intellectually honest discussion, you may bring up points that show why you think tracking down the source of the leak was important, or that it is standard procedure for military lawyers or lawyers in general to track email opens. Instead you've chosen to focus on the lack of a written prohibition of pixel tracking in a code of conduct written for lawyers, enforced by state bars that don't have jurisdiction over military lawyers.
- jhhh 7y ago
  If you don't like him just say so and move on. Trying to rationalize and then justify non-substantiation in an argument by playing this burden of proof shifting metagame wastes everyone's time. Just because you dressed up your assessment in this snide court language doesn't make it any better.
dariusj18 7y ago
I agree with you that many people in this thread are talking out of their asses, but as a thought experiment, would it be unethical for an Prosecutor to plant a tracking device on the car of a Defense attorney? Is there a legal difference between that and attempting to track the behavior of the Defense attorney online?