Re: Let's meet. Was: Re: Should the specs be forked and maintained elsewhere?

Thanks for the reply Marcus.

I agree myself re: friendliness + affection but I'm afraid that isn't 
necessarily good a11y or respectful of the (in my opinion, appropriate) 
desire participants may have to collaborate without exposing one's face, 
voice, or geographic location to future analysis by surveillance technology.

This comes up often in my workshops, but then again I do focus on 
privacy and human rights so the threat model is different.

Sean O'Brien
Visiting Lecturer (Cybersecurity), Yale Law School
Fellow, Information Society Project at Yale Law School
Founder, Privacy Lab at Yale ISP, https://privacylab.yale.edu

On 3/24/23 11:30, Marcus Rohrmoser wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2023, at 14:35, Sean O'Brien wrote:
>
>> I don't like the part where people have to show video, even for a 
>> short while. If the reason is identity verification, I'm not sure why 
>> a proof of identity is an issue.
>
> no proof. Just human affection. Let the mirror neurons kick in. Seeing 
> smiling eyes makes a difference.
>
>> Forced microphone is also a potential issue
>> - just let people acknowledge themselves at the start of the meeting 
>> in whatever form they like.
>
> agreed, that's paramount.
>
>> I assume item #6 is a joke?
>
> No. Metaphorical. Take a breath, chill a bit, have some hot or cold or 
> whatever drink.
>
>> Live transcription is very difficult to get right in my experience 
>> running online events, without hiring a professional. The plugins for 
>> OBS etc. are terrible. Open AI improves this dramatically, but I 
>> don't know if folks want their conversations fed into a data set for 
>> a language learning model.
>> Meeting minutes should probably suffice, with video+audio recording 
>> made available for a limited time.
>
> Yes, I for one am more interested in results than noise. Concise 
> preferred.
>
> Thanks,
> Marcus
>

Received on Friday, 24 March 2023 15:38:17 UTC