Penetration Testing mailing list archives
RE: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT
From: Frank Knobbe <frank () knobbe us>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:56:15 -0500
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 15:34 +1000, Craig Wright wrote:
The idea is that you stick to the facts. The moment you get into opinion is where issues may arise. Expert testimony is about fact. Not opinion.
You can't generalize like that. Expert testimony is very well about opinion. Not your personal opinion/view of right or wrong (judges decide that), but your opinion on the case matter. For example, the court may ask you your opinion on the common/normal use of certain software where the plaintiff/defendant is suspected of misusing it. Your opinion has to be based on facts, not outside influence or such, but in the end, it is your opinion that convinces a jury or helps a judge to understand the circumstance so he can pass judgment.
The Georgia law is applicable to criminal law cases - and ONLY criminal law cases. If you are hired by the state (i.e. Police, AG etc) - you are covered under exemption. If you are hired by the defence, you are hired by the attorney. This means that you also become covered under the rule unless you are ignorant of judicial requirements and start spouting opinion without a solid factual basis.
I'm glad to hear that, and I think that most uses of expert witnesses fall into this group (being hired by attorney, civil or district). But I wonder in what circumstances this rule does apply then? If you're not working for counsel, how else might you end up in court? Surely not hired by defendant directly without involvement of counsel?!? Cheers, Frank -- It is said that the Internet is a public utility. As such, it is best compared to a sewer. A big, fat pipe with a bunch of crap sloshing against your ports.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Current thread:
- Re: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT, (continued)
- Re: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Tim (Apr 26)
- Re: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT xelerated (Apr 26)
- Re: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Richard Van Luvender (Apr 27)
- Re: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Brian Anderson (Apr 26)
- Re: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Maudite MLRL (Apr 25)
- RE: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Ramsdell, Scott (Apr 26)
- RE: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT jim (Apr 27)
- RE: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT v b (Apr 27)
- RE: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT jim (Apr 27)
- RE: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Steve Jensen (Apr 26)
- RE: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Craig Wright (Apr 27)
- RE: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Frank Knobbe (Apr 27)
- Re: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Mark Teicher (Apr 27)
- Re: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Mark Teicher (Apr 27)
- Re: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Gene Cronk (Apr 27)
- RE: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Craig Wright (Apr 27)
- RE: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Damien Dinh (Apr 27)
- Re: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Mark Teicher (Apr 27)
- RE: Licensed Penetration Tester LPT Mark Teicher (Apr 27)