Hacker News Reader

I was deposed in a case; after referencing one-way hashing in an answer, opposing counsel attempted to get me to ramble by saying, "I don't think I understand." I replied, "I agree."

I just tried to picture it and burst out laughing. Would you be able to provide any more details about this deposition? In what context did one-way hashing come up?

One way hashing came up in the context of sharing email opt-outs without sharing the actual email addresses. (Send a list of hashes of email addresses and the hash function and require that no one whose email hashes to a value on that list may be emailed marketing material.)

It's been many years now, but we did some canonicalization of email addresses before hashing [downcasing, stripping whitespace, stripping periods (gmail), stripping any local tags (plus-sign), and maybe a few others I'm forgetting] since false positives were "safe".

Sounds like a joke straight out of Rick and Morty, got a laugh out of me!

That's hilarious but did the comment even need a reply?

No; counsel was clearly stopping and waiting for me to respond. I could have remained silent, but my reply was a way to move things along (by indicating I wasn't going to ramble in response to a non-question as well as getting a poke in).

Haha I see, thanks!

> This is pretty unlike regular life. As an engineer if someone asked me "Hey, in order to get the widget-spinner to go clockwise do I call function X?" I might answer "No, what you need to do is set variable X to true." (or whatever). In a deposition the correct answer would just be "no."

Or, even, possibly, “You might” (given the question phrasing ”...do I...”), if it is technically possible to get the fidget spinner to go clockwise with a call to function X, even though it's not the right way.

Hah, even better!

This cautious question-answering might feel unusual because it potentially violates Gricean norms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature

(In typical conversation, speakers often guess why a question was asked and try to respond to the inferred motivation.)

I had a similar experience with the deposition (instructed by my attorney to keep things simple and single-syllable if I wanted to get out of it quickly), and the switch from on-record to off-record was pretty weird, as the opposing side knew my attorney pretty well, which inspired a lively exchange about weekend plans, common acquaintances, etc. In a few minutes we're back on record with just dry "Yes"es, "No"es and "Do not recall"s flying around.

> So when they ask a question you are taught to answer precisely what they asked and no more.

I find this interesting conceptually.

Can you elaborate where this is being taught? or, if not of general knowledge, who, when, where taught you that?

Not a deposition, just an internet question.

Lawyers tell their clients this right before they, the client, is deposed. As another commentor here hinted at, when being deposed you are either going to play it safe or lose, there is really no winning. Deposition hiccups are later used, at trial or in settlement negotiations, as leverage against your opponent or to try to discredit them as a witness/simply make them look stupid as a witness. A deponent seldom has anything to gain from waxing poetic about whatever they are being deposed about.

That's the litigation game.

Edit: spelling.

Not sure if it's taught anywhere per se, but in many arenas it becomes habit. "Do you know what time it is?" "Yes." "Can you tell me the time?" "Yes." "What time is it?" "11:30".

Why cough up the answer so soon? Make them specify the time zone.

And that they are asking for the current time. Not the time of the lunch break.

If you work for a "normal" company, your company's lawyer will spend a day or so prepping you for deposition before the actual thing.

And the deposition is very tiring.

Do not go overboard or it will backfire:

Take a 2 hour disposition transcript to the judge.

All answers are ~I cannot recall~.

Profit.