6 ms·
You can hear the (fascinating) oral arguments to the Supreme Court here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/17-2 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/17-2 . I didn't kn
by btown 9y ago
You can hear the (fascinating) oral arguments to the Supreme Court here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/17-2 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/17-2 . I didn't know these were publicly available!
An interesting tidbit:
Sotomayor, at 09:44, pushes back against the U.S. attorney, referencing what I assume to be the CLOUD act as a more reasonable compromise than what the attorney has been advocating:
> And the problem that Justice Ginsburg alludes to is the fact that, by doing so, we are trenching on the very thing that our extraterritoriality doesn't want to do, what our jurisprudence doesn't want to do, which is to create international problems. Now I understand there's a bill that's being proposed by bipartisan senators that would give you most of what you want but with great protections against foreign conflicts. There are limitations involving records that are stored abroad.
- ahakki 9y agoYou can read all (?) court submissions here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-microsoft-corp/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-m...
- cosinetau 9y agoOyez is a national treasure.
- IAmEveryone 9y agoI can only encourage everyone to read some of these documents. They really dispel the myth that judges are clueless. And they are also often more entertaining than one might think.
- aerotwelve 9y agoAnd, as a bonus, you can often find some truly great quotes: GINSBURG: Mr. Dreeben, may I ask you a broader question? I think the starting point all would agree in, what was it, 1986, no one ever heard of clouds.
- icebraining 9y agoI didn't know these were publicly available! The SCOTUS only has audio, but the Ninth Circuit has a full video channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeIMdiBTNTpeA84wmSRPDPg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeIMdiBTNTpeA84wmSRPDPg
- GavinMcG 9y agoAnd to chip in some more, that's because SCOTUS doesn't allow cameras in the courtroom. Personally, I think that's a good thing – having a platform for performance motivates just that, and I don't want a performance from judges, I want soberly considered and carefully constructed legal opinions.
- BookmarkSaver 9y agoI'm leery of even audio recordings, but too much information and nuance can be contained in tone and phrasing that it is probably necessary. Also, it is significantly harder to manipulate audio records.
- hexane360 9y agoIt's definitely not harder to manipulate audio records than video records. Video is images + audio. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/adobe-voco-photoshop-for-audio-speech-editing/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/adobe...
- larkeith 9y agoParent likely meant as compared to text-only transcripts.
- gowld 9y agoTone conveys a lot, but deserves no place in a courtroom which should be about facts and opinions, or rhetorical flourish.
- aerotwelve 9y agoThanks for introducing me to Oyez as a source for oral arguments. The audio is much easier to follow when it's paired (and synced) with the transcript. This is probably the best we can get until that fabled day when they finally allow cameras in the courtroom.
- alschwalm 9y agoShameless plug: If you enjoy that, you may like a version that I made that sinks the audio and transcripts with puppies[1], available here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn1ibFnn3NcXjQHY47o0yWg/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn1ibFnn3NcXjQHY47o0yWg/vid... Though this particular case is not available yet. [1]: The idea was originally inspired by Last Week Tonight, I just automatically generate them.
- btown 9y agoAmazing! What API are you using to weave together the clips - just ffmpeg, or some other tool? Also I love that you coded cutaways to observers and the chicken stenographer - it makes it incredibly natural seeming. Did any news outlets end up using your outputted videos? Also, any chance it’s open source? :)
- JoblessWonder 9y agoNot OP, but it looks like it is: https://github.com/ALSchwalm/PuppyJusticeAutomated https://github.com/ALSchwalm/PuppyJusticeAutomated
- hahla 9y agoWhat a wonderful experience. That was my first time listing to a supreme court oral argument and the site has such a clean UI it was such a joy to listen to and following along with the transcript.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoI came here pissed off, saw your comment, listened to the arguments, and walk away pleased with the performance of our justice system. A court found personal jurisdiction over an individual before the court, issued an order requiring the disclosure of information and then expected the person to comply with the order irrespective of where said information was stored. If you break American law in America, saying "the information is overseas" isn't--and shouldn't be--a valid excuse. Extending that to a third-party providers, when both the individual and provider are in America, makes sense. Could this be abused? Sure. But the oral arguments show the Justices giving the question respectful concern.
- marshray 9y ago> If you break American law in America, saying "the information is overseas" isn't--and shouldn't be--a valid excuse. So, by this logic, if a prosecutor in [country without privacy rights] claims one of their laws has been broken, they are able to seize emails, files, and VM images (even, say, from the US government) stored in any cloud provider that happens to have a business office in that country?
- yitosda 9y agoYes. All those countries you have in mind can attempt that and likely already have. The creation of law or precedent in the USA doesn't make it happen elsewhere, nor does not having law or precedent in the USA prevent it elsewhere. This response comes up a lot, and it deserves to be considered more than rhetorically.