4 ms·

Actually, it's more like the court reporter is the official witness. They are attesting to what happened in the courtroom. The actual instrument that the report

Actually, it's more like the court reporter is the official witness. They are attesting to what happened in the courtroom. The actual instrument that the reporter uses is much less important. And trials have the audio recorded anyway. I know that when my uncle started in the early 90s, there were still some court reporters that used shorthand with pencil and paper. I don't think there is a requirement that they use a steno machine. Their job isn't to record what happened, their job is to generate a single authoritative transcript that everyone works from. In theory, they could probably not take notes at all, and just work from the recording later, but it is probably easier to take the first round of notes live. When a court reporter generates a transcript, they sometimes have to go back through the audio recordings sometimes and actually clarify in the official transcript exactly what was said. They have to make it clear in the transcript if people were talking over each other, or to try to clarify what exactly was said if it might be ambiguous. I think it is a good idea for a trial to have an official record that has been processed by a human, instead of just throwing a recording up and calling it a day. Think of how inefficient it would be otherwise, where all of the parties would essentially have to act as their own court reporters and generate their own transcripts. What if different parties disagreed with the interpretation of the transcripts? Perhaps the court would then have to appoint a neutral expert to make an authoritative determination of what was said; and we've now re-invented the court-reporter role. I think there is a tendency for people to look at this only as a technical problem to be solved. Like with voting, it isn't just a matter of securely tallying votes, there is much more to it. The process requires maximizing transparency and minimizing room for anyone to contest it.

eckza 6y ago
As a teenager / college-aged kid, I provided "IT assistance" to family, friends, and friends of family/friends for a fee. One of my best clients was middle-aged mother of three - let's call her Pat, because that's close enough - whose home IT setup always needed a lot of extra love. Weird viruses on old machines, ancient printers that had to be coaxed to work well when shared over a network, "what laptop should I buy my son for college" - the usual. She was a court reporter, by trade. I had to help her with her laptop and court reporting software / hardware from time to time - it was very interesting. She had a custom "keyboard" that only had 10-15 unlabeled keys that really looked more like long and thin paddles than anything else; it worked with a program that recorded audio and tracked it to her inputs. So she could wind the report back to any given point in time, and it would highlight what she'd typed as it went. So if she needed clarification on something - she could enable audio playback that showed what she had transcribed, not unlike a karaoke machine. It was all very interesting stuff. I was a little sad when I had to tell her that I couldn't do work for her anymore, because I didn't have the time to do side work due to a developing career and social life.
- lathiat 6y ago
  There is a product called "LiveScribe" which is a pen for handwritten notes that also records the audio. It uses a special "GPS" paper with a location pattern in it and you can tap your note and it seeks back to the relevant audio. I think it also digitises the actual notes but I am not 100% on the exacts of that. Interesting in any case.
tanatocenose 6y ago
sounds quaint.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>I think it is a good idea for a trial to have an official record that has been processed by a human, instead of just throwing a recording up and calling it a day. especially if someone points at someone else or uses other means of communication. Of course the judge can then say what was communicated so there is a verbal record in the recording but it is probably better that the court reporter is there in that case.
sjy 6y ago
Transcripts are really important and they need to be proofed and edited by humans. However, they can be produced efficiently by sending digital audio recordings to a team of fast typists who can work remotely, work concurrently, adjust the playback speed, skip pauses, and pause and replay tricky sections. These days, automated transcription software can further accelerate the process by generating a very rough draft. I don't think stenographers are used to produce court transcripts outside the United States.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  I don't see how that's any faster or cheaper. All stenographers are is fast typists. So I honestly don't even know if you're describing a distinct process. There are literally "Steno Masks," a sound-dampening mask that fits over your lower face that you can use to repeat whats being said, clearly and quietly, to transcription software on your computer (along with formatting notes and the identities of speakers.) Stenographers aren't required to use a stenotype, they're required to produce an accurate transcript of the proceedings, and to be able to read back what was recently said. If you come up with a system that does that more efficiently, put it into action and take the profit. The methods used are defined by their efficiency. This is a thread about discussing people who can type faster and more accurately than one would imagine possible, and easily better than current machine performance.
  - apostacy 6y ago
    Stenotype might very well be on the way out, but I still want every trial transcript to be edited by an actual human with expert training and who is strictly regulated and held responsible. I'm fine with lawyers using software to optimize their work. But I don't ever want to replace lawyers themselves. I can understand the temptation to create a law AI, since so much of what lawyers do is systematic and procedural. I still want a licensed lawyer to review and sign off on any arguments.
  - sjy 6y ago
    Stenographers aren’t just fast typists, they are specialists trained to produce a written (shorthand) record of the hearing in real time. Audio recordings make this obsolete. Certified full transcripts are still needed, but they can be produced more quickly using concurrent typists and proof readers, and more cheaply because you don’t need to hire specialists trained in the use of expensive stenotype machines, or pay them to sit around in the courtroom when nobody is speaking. It’s not a novel idea, which is why I mentioned that as far as I know, stenotype is now used only in the United States. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13035979 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13035979

eckza 6y ago

As a teenager / college-aged kid, I provided "IT assistance" to family, friends, and friends of family/friends for a fee. One of my best clients was middle-aged mother of three - let's call her Pat, because that's close enough - whose home IT setup always needed a lot of extra love. Weird viruses on old machines, ancient printers that had to be coaxed to work well when shared over a network, "what laptop should I buy my son for college" - the usual. She was a court reporter, by trade. I had to help her with her laptop and court reporting software / hardware from time to time - it was very interesting. She had a custom "keyboard" that only had 10-15 unlabeled keys that really looked more like long and thin paddles than anything else; it worked with a program that recorded audio and tracked it to her inputs. So she could wind the report back to any given point in time, and it would highlight what she'd typed as it went. So if she needed clarification on something - she could enable audio playback that showed what she had transcribed, not unlike a karaoke machine. It was all very interesting stuff. I was a little sad when I had to tell her that I couldn't do work for her anymore, because I didn't have the time to do side work due to a developing career and social life.

lathiat 6y ago
There is a product called "LiveScribe" which is a pen for handwritten notes that also records the audio. It uses a special "GPS" paper with a location pattern in it and you can tap your note and it seeks back to the relevant audio. I think it also digitises the actual notes but I am not 100% on the exacts of that. Interesting in any case.

tanatocenose 6y ago

sounds quaint.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

>I think it is a good idea for a trial to have an official record that has been processed by a human, instead of just throwing a recording up and calling it a day. especially if someone points at someone else or uses other means of communication. Of course the judge can then say what was communicated so there is a verbal record in the recording but it is probably better that the court reporter is there in that case.

sjy 6y ago

Transcripts are really important and they need to be proofed and edited by humans. However, they can be produced efficiently by sending digital audio recordings to a team of fast typists who can work remotely, work concurrently, adjust the playback speed, skip pauses, and pause and replay tricky sections. These days, automated transcription software can further accelerate the process by generating a very rough draft. I don't think stenographers are used to produce court transcripts outside the United States.

pessimizer 6y ago
I don't see how that's any faster or cheaper. All stenographers are is fast typists. So I honestly don't even know if you're describing a distinct process. There are literally "Steno Masks," a sound-dampening mask that fits over your lower face that you can use to repeat whats being said, clearly and quietly, to transcription software on your computer (along with formatting notes and the identities of speakers.) Stenographers aren't required to use a stenotype, they're required to produce an accurate transcript of the proceedings, and to be able to read back what was recently said. If you come up with a system that does that more efficiently, put it into action and take the profit. The methods used are defined by their efficiency. This is a thread about discussing people who can type faster and more accurately than one would imagine possible, and easily better than current machine performance.
- apostacy 6y ago
  Stenotype might very well be on the way out, but I still want every trial transcript to be edited by an actual human with expert training and who is strictly regulated and held responsible. I'm fine with lawyers using software to optimize their work. But I don't ever want to replace lawyers themselves. I can understand the temptation to create a law AI, since so much of what lawyers do is systematic and procedural. I still want a licensed lawyer to review and sign off on any arguments.
- sjy 6y ago
  Stenographers aren’t just fast typists, they are specialists trained to produce a written (shorthand) record of the hearing in real time. Audio recordings make this obsolete. Certified full transcripts are still needed, but they can be produced more quickly using concurrent typists and proof readers, and more cheaply because you don’t need to hire specialists trained in the use of expensive stenotype machines, or pay them to sit around in the courtroom when nobody is speaking. It’s not a novel idea, which is why I mentioned that as far as I know, stenotype is now used only in the United States. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13035979 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13035979