- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:43:30 -0500
- To: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com
- Cc: "Holm, Jeanne M (1760)" <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>, Nikos Roussos <nikos@autoverse.net>, W3C eGov IG mailing list <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 20:18 +0000, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> A few quick follow up thoughts about this recording thing
>
> (the transcripts are v useful to catch up and document what was said,
> but a bit difficult and long to read. Recordings do have an important
> place for ppl who cannot attend the meetings)
>
> a few other possibilities to explore:
>
> - is there anyone really who would not consent to their voice being
> recorded in this group? aren't most people here to share and make
> their voice heard?
>
>
> - if not, or if they are a tiny minority, then permission to record
> could be a condition to participating in the call in the first place.
>
>
> - was thinking about the parallel with taking minutes, isnt a
> recording the same as minutes?
My understanding is that taking notes on a conversation and recording
the conversation are, legally, entirely different.
Also, I think it's *possible*, given the way all-parties-consent laws
are written, that one needs consent from everyone on the call, even
people who are not speaking.
The practical solution is to announce at the start of the meeting, and
whenever taking questions, that the meeting is being recorded. What I
don't know is if that's sufficient in every jurisdiction that could
possibly apply. If anyone knows how to find that out, without paying
vast legal fees, that would be an interesting contribution.
It would also be nice to somehow keep a measure of how many people are
silenced by the idea of a recording being made.
-- Sandro
> has anyone every objected to what they say in a call be struck of the
> proceedings? would this be a legitimate/sane request (unless these had
> been recorded incorrectly of course). How can the law
> be different between recording an intervention in writing and/or using
> appropriate technology (voice)
>
>
> - a solution that does not require a muffle functionality to be in
> place yet, could be having two parallel calls going on
> one where the participants give consent to record their voice, where
> they can also speak and intervene, then a
> 'listen only' call, where participants are not allowed to intervene
> (but can do so on IRC and email for example)
> Somehow it feels fair that if someone dont want their voice recorded,
> by so doing, also waive their right to make their voice heard. They
> can always post a note :-)
>
>
> Just thoughts for the record
>
>
> Til next
>
>
> PDM
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Paola Di Maio
> <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
> Take this opportunity to apologise for missing the last
> meeting (belated) I was travelling
>
>
> Sounds like there may be a new requirement for recording
> software feature: when the caller dials the call, should be
> asked to give consent to record, if this is not given, they
> should be able to participate in the call, however the
> recording should be 'muted' or substituted with some music or
> other drill. Should not be difficult to implement
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 07:52 -0800, Holm, Jeanne M
> (1760) wrote:
> > Nikos--
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure we'll be doing an audio recording, but
> let me check…
>
> As I understand it, the laws around audio recording
> make it too risky.
> In particular, in some jurisdictions, including
> Massachusetts where our
> phone bridge is, the law requires consent from *all*
> parties for
> recording a telephone conversation. Given the number
> of possible
> attendees, and the difficulty of identifying each of
> them, let alone
> getting their consent, I don't think it's practical.
>
>
> -- Sandro
>
> >
> > We will be capturing the chat over IRC and that will
> be shortly a day
> > or two after the meeting.
> >
> >
> > --Jeanne
> >
> >
> **********************************************************
> > Jeanne Holm
> > Evangelist, Data.gov
> > U.S. General Services Administration
> > Cell: (818) 434-5037
> > Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn: JeanneHolm
> >
> **********************************************************
> >
> >
> > From: Nikos Roussos <nikos@autoverse.net>
> > Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 03:50:01 -0800
> > To: Jeanne Holm <Jeanne.M.Holm@jpl.nasa.gov>
> > Cc: W3C eGov IG mailing list
> <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, Linked Data
> > community <public-lod@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: W3C eGov Meeting Time Change: 20
> December 5 pm Eastern
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there going to be an audio recording available
> after the meeting?
> >
> > --
> > Nikos Roussos
> > about | linkedin
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Holm, Jeanne M
> (1760)
> > <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > Hi all--
> >
> >
> > Our W3C eGovernment Interest Group will be
> meeting tomorrow
> > with an exciting agenda on licensing issues
> around government
> > data and services. One of our key speakers,
> Dr. Anne
> > Fitzgerald, is joining us from Brisbane and
> we'll be shifting
> > the time to better accommodate that time
> zone. Apologies in
> > advance for keeping our European colleagues
> up late, and a
> > great opportunity for others to join at a
> more reasonable
> > time.
> >
> >
> > 20 December, 10-11:30 pm GMT/5-6:30 pm EDT
> > 21 December, 8-9:30 am Brisbane
> >
> >
> > Speakers:
> > --Dr. Anne Fitzgerald, University of
> > Queensland,
> http://www.law.qut.edu.au/staff/facstaff/afitzgerald.jsp
> > --Sarah Pearson and team, Creative
> > Commons, http://creativecommons.org/
> >
> >
> > Agenda:
> > --Licensing issues for open data and
> government services
> > --Impacts of licensing choices on
> providers and consumers of
> > data and services
> > --Looking at specific uses of Creative
> Commons
> > --Open questions
> >
> >
> > Verify your local event time
> > at
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=W3C+eGovernment+Interest+Group+Licensing+Discussion&iso=20111220T17&p1=263&ah=1&am=30
> >
> >
> > To join, dial +1.617.761.6200 (for the Zakim
> bridge) and use
> > conference 3468 ("EGOV")
> > To join the chat, go to http://irc.w3.org/
> and enter #egov for
> > the channel.
> >
> >
> > Looking forward to talking to you all
> tomorrow!
> >
> >
> > --Jeanne Holm
> >
> >
> **********************************************************
> > Jeanne Holm
> > Evangelist, Data.gov
> > U.S. General Services Administration
> > Cell: (818) 434-5037
> > Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn: JeanneHolm
> >
> **********************************************************
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 23 December 2011 20:43:44 UTC