Richard White
Senior Member
She has had the business name fir 3years and not one single person noticed?
To be fair I forgot she even existed.
She has had the business name fir 3years and not one single person noticed?
Why have they set it so people can choose to be muted or have their mics on? Basic protocol for this type of thing. Only active participants should have mics.
I can understand having those struggles a year ago. To not have figured it out by now is incompetence.
Especially for the courts. This isn't some grandparents wanting to Zoom with their grandkids. Though from what I've heard the legal/judicial profession is extremely slow with tech uptake generally speaking.
AoD
It is; although, in their defence (see what I did there), the government as a whole has always struggled with distributed networking systems. When it comes to the legal system, they have to worry about things that the average company holding a remote meeting does not. In this example, somebody clearly dropped the ball - unless you are a court 'player', you get to sit silently and observe. I don't know enough about the tech whether they can protect the space and bandwidth needed for the mandatory participants.
In some cases with legal processes, some changes have been limited by the lack of enabling legislation (i.e. electronic signatures on documents). Also, the profession has often taken the position that the state should pay for the tech upgrades in their offices.
"I am not a cat".