21–30 of 177 posts
Either zoom has an opportunity to add a location-verification privacy nightmare of a feature, or a startup can make a zoom replacement for the unique needs of a remote justice system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transcripts are already public information. The accused obviously already knows where she lives. How does this affect her security? Even if we could keep the identity of witnesses secret, we don’t want to. We have the right to confront our accusers, and we don’t want secret trials.
It allows more people to go and attack her, and opens the door to much more violence in the future. Now instead of 1 predator knowing where she lives there are a million. Is that good? Transcripts should redact addresses and contact information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transcripts are already public information. The accused obviously already knows where she lives. How does this affect her security? Even if we could keep the identity of witnesses secret, we don’t want to. We have the right to confront our accusers, and we don’t want secret trials.
It allows more people to go and attack her, and opens the door to much more violence in the future. Now instead of 1 predator knowing where she lives there are a million. Is that good? Transcripts should redact addresses and contact information.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210311055900/https://www.youtu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It allows more people to go and attack her, and opens the door to much more violence in the future. Now instead of 1 predator knowing where she lives there are a million. Is that good? Transcripts should redact addresses and contact information.
It's a harder problem that. Secrecy in courts is a tool often used by totalitarian dictatorships, a blanket objection to that sort of thing may actually do more good than harm. In a practical sense I totally agree with omitting addresses specifically but I also understand the skepticism of any reduction of transparency in the courts.
Courts don't post SSNs and bank account numbers in their transcripts, and residential addresses should be treated with the same level of privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transcripts are already public information. The accused obviously already knows where she lives. How does this affect her security? Even if we could keep the identity of witnesses secret, we don’t want to. We have the right to confront our accusers, and we don’t want secret trials.
It allows more people to go and attack her, and opens the door to much more violence in the future. Now instead of 1 predator knowing where she lives there are a million. Is that good? Transcripts should redact addresses and contact information.
Why are people today suddenly so worried about that?
This is the same judge who had a defendant join a Zoom hearing using the name, "Buttfucker 3000". https://www.vice.com/en/article/88ng9g/judge-has-no-patience...
Judge Middleton and Deborah Davis (the attorney) from this case are very popular over there. She is even a member of the subreddit IIRC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It allows more people to go and attack her, and opens the door to much more violence in the future. Now instead of 1 predator knowing where she lives there are a million. Is that good? Transcripts should redact addresses and contact information.
I do not know if you know this, but back in the day, we used to publish entire doxxing books, listing everyone's address and home phone number. It was opt-out, and almost nobody did. Why are people today suddenly so worried about that?
Lots of very grave things were done in history that we now know to be mistakes.
Also, I always opted out in those days. I should still be able to do that today.