4 ms·
No. The court handled this quickly and appropriately. I don't see a reason to lose one's privacy.
by inetknght 5y ago
No. The court handled this quickly and appropriately. I don't see a reason to lose one's privacy.
- regulation_d 5y agoobviously the question is, are there cases of witness intimidation that aren't being caught?
- inetknght 5y agoAny information provided over Zoom can be falsified. Any future court which has concerns about witness intimidation should follow a similar procedure that this court already performed. There is no reason to lose your privacy over this.
- dylan604 5y agoshort answer, yes. as long as there are "bad guys" willing to do anything to stay out of jail, witness intimidation will occur as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.
- happytoexplain 5y agoThe court discovered the problem in this instance. Further, the parent provided an alternative suggestion. Another commenter elaborated on that "dedicated platform" idea: A dedicated device.
- cameron_b 5y agoZoom is new in courtrooms, but videoconferencing is not. it used to be done on dedicated devices and could in the future as well. Cisco and Poly ( formerly Polycom ) were loved for their security and management functions. Put a defendant in the "Video" room at the jail and have an arraignment with zero physical interaction, threat to court staff, or transport costs and risks [and the jail staff just need to make sure the thing is plugged in to the wall, the rest was automated]. This was the model when I installed the stuff 10 years ago ( in a mostly rural county in South Carolina, at that ) Zoom is blowing the doors off access, but there is appetite for specialization.