Blazie Engineering/Technologies

My first note taking device that I ever had was the Braille light 2000. I had that from about six or seventh grade all the way through think like ninth or 10th grade in high school and then I got the pack made the QX model with the 40 sale display. I definitely prefer to pack me over the prayer light for sure. I don’t really like Braille keyboards and notetakers. I had gotten that one first though because I wasn’t as fast typing on the QWERTY keyboard yet. I have never seen the type of polite, but I know about it. There was also a type in speak. Same thing just about the Braille display. I don’t miss the awful speech chip in that though. I don’t ever wanna hear that voice again, the Arctic speech. It was terrible. The only voices I would want to have come back is Keynote gold but that wasn’t even used on my pack mate so there’s kind of fat issue. Kind of made me wish I had a real note. I know that that’s not from Blazy, but still just the whole notetaker thing I could never get an undertaker now. issue. Kind of made me wish I had a real note. I know that that’s not from Blazy, but still just the whole notetaker thing I could never get a notetaker now. We never be able to afford it. I’m gonna just stick with my phone in Jaws on the computer. I don’t even use Braille display anymore buried I literally use the iPhone with the touchscreen and speech for voiceover and that’s it.

I still have hte original CD and also compatible apps with the Omni.

I got to play with a Braille like M2. Sadly, I’ve never owned one. I actually did love the double talk synthesizer. I forgot about that actually. Glad that she brought that back to my memory. I have no idea if you can hear any of those audio samples of any of that anymore. They should bring double talk to iOS too. They’re bringing back all those other older voices. We just keep going really far back. Why not.

I had a braille‘ and speak for about 20 years, and loved it. The one bad thing was that it had two batteries. One battery was fairly easy to exchange, but the other one was buried deep and had to be sent back to the manufacturer to be replaced. I finally gave up on it when the second battery gave out and my files got corrupted. I ended up getting an orbit reader. It is nice, but the Braelin speak could do more.

Does anybody want double talk for iOS? We got Eliquis. We never thought we would. So now we just need to get double talk. We can get TikTok. I mean, they could even be apps just like the E speaks of the size there as an app. Just saying. We won all these old voices. You need to bring back the keynote gold voices too. I would totally use those. Hey we can dream. I meant to say DEC talk. Sorry. I have to use dictation on here.

singer girl, I vote you keep using dictation. I was relieved to learn, for example, that you don't make use of an undertaker. As for Blaizie, they're trying to sell the new generation of products over here. Bingo isn't listening unless they're localised properly. Not everyone lives in North america, I say.

Thanks, I guess. I’m not really a fan of any kind of specialized no takers anymore. My phone can do all the things and you can do and probably more. I just don’t see why they’re even is any of those no takers anymore. Unfortunately, I have to use dictation. Because my mild CP makes my hands kind of hurt so typing on the phone is difficult and I can’t really get a Bluetooth keyboard. I also can’t really use the router so that’s why. Yeah I wouldn’t try to get a product that isn’t localized either. Didn’t really make sense to have to do that.

Hi Singer Girl, I've explained elsewhere why, despite loving my phone and being a senior lawyer, the notetaker is very much part of my kit. In summary, sometimes you need a gadget that can't do that much - a gadget that can't, for instance, go online. I line manage 30 people. when I have confidential discussions with them, I need to take notes but I cannot take them in regular electronic form and certainly cannot store them in the cloud. That's a classic notetaker scenario - the sort of scenario where my sighted colleagues have to use a pad and pen. I am required to create BRF files and store them entirely offline, and for only as long as I need them. Sure, the iPhone can now create Braille notes, but the iPhone is an internet device. It stores notes in the Cloud, is in constant connection with the internet and is, ultimately, hackable. That is just one reason (there are several others that I and other people have given) why the notetaker is essential. I call it the bingo pad and paper theory.

Oh yes, I remember that now. Thanks. I forgotten that. I read that on a couple other threads. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Especially when there things that need to be confidential. So I guess what we’re really thinking. Is that the pattern paper for side people will never really be officially gone, especially like you said when it comes to things that are confidential. So hopefully they’ll always be some kind of a note. Take care for your particular situation then. I used to have no takers, but I don’t anymore. I would never be able to afford one now. I only had those while I was in school still. But it definitely makes a lot of sense.

I don't know but I feel that now the bi40x can record with its internal microphone, or the stream 2/3 for that matter, this could be very useful in this kind of setting?

You can't record without the consent of the other party, or else, of all other parties to the recording. There is intellectual property in one's voice. Additionally, recording and listening back is a very inefficient way of proceeding. You could, I suppose, record and then transcribe but you need to go online for that - something which the pad and paper theory prevents. No no, there is still plenty of room for relatively low-tech notetakers.

So, bingo is.. mostly.. correct, with exceptions.

One-Party Consent Laws in the United States

Federal Law

At the federal level, recording conversations is governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2511.

Federal law generally follows the “one-party consent” rule. This means that if you are a participant in a conversation, you may generally record it without informing or obtaining permission from the other participants. Likewise, if one participant has consented to the recording, the recording is generally lawful.

An important exception is that the recording cannot be made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act, such as blackmail, extortion, or fraud.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice https://www.justice.gov/archives/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1055-exceptions-prohibitions-other-consensual-interceptions

State Laws

Although federal law permits one-party consent, states are free to enact stricter laws.

Most U.S. states follow one-party consent, while approximately twelve states require the consent of every participant before recording a private conversation. These are commonly referred to as “all-party consent” or “two-party consent” states.

When state law is more restrictive than federal law, individuals within that state must generally comply with the stricter state law.

Source: RecordingLaw.com https://www.recordinglaw.com/united-states-recording-laws/

Interstate Conversations

Recording conversations between people located in different U.S. states introduces additional legal complexity.

For example, someone in Texas (a one-party consent state) recording a conversation with someone in California (an all-party consent state) may be subject to conflicting laws.

There is no universal rule determining which state’s law applies. Courts may consider factors such as:

Where the recording was made.

Where each participant was physically located.

Which court has jurisdiction.

Which state has the greater legal interest in the dispute.

Because of this uncertainty, legal professionals commonly recommend following the stricter law and obtaining the consent of all participants whenever a conversation crosses state lines.

Source: Congressional Research Service https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41733

International Conversations

International recordings are even more legally complex because multiple legal systems may potentially apply simultaneously.

Depending on the circumstances, applicable laws may include:

U.S. federal law.

The law of the U.S. state where the recorder is located.

The law of the country where the other participant is located.

Privacy or data protection laws governing storage, transmission, or publication of the recording.

Unlike the United States, there is no universal international recording law.

For example:

Canada generally follows a one-party consent rule under its federal Criminal Code.

Many European countries have significantly stronger privacy protections, often requiring consent before recording private conversations or imposing strict limitations on how recordings may later be used under privacy legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Some countries treat unauthorized recording as a criminal offense, while others permit recording but regulate the distribution or publication of those recordings.

Even if a recording is lawful where the recorder is located, another country may still claim jurisdiction if the recorded person resides there or if the recording is later distributed or relied upon within that country.

Sources:

Government of Canada https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

European Commission (GDPR) https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection_en

International Business Calls

Businesses operating internationally often avoid uncertainty by announcing at the beginning of a call:

“This call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance purposes.”

If participants continue the conversation after hearing the announcement, this may constitute consent under many jurisdictions, although the legal effect varies depending on the applicable laws.

Best Practice

Whenever a conversation:

Crosses state lines,

Crosses international borders,

May later be used in court,

Involves business,

Or includes participants in an all-party consent jurisdiction,

the safest practice is to simply ask:

“I’d like to record this conversation. Is that okay?”

Receiving a clear verbal acknowledgment greatly reduces legal uncertainty and demonstrates good faith, regardless of which jurisdiction’s laws ultimately apply.

Additional Official References

U.S. Department of Justice (Electronic Surveillance) https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-7000-electronic-surveillance

U.S. Department of Justice (Consensual Interceptions) https://www.justice.gov/archives/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1055-exceptions-prohibitions-other-consensual-interceptions

Congressional Research Service (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41733

RecordingLaw.com (State-by-State Recording Laws) https://www.recordinglaw.com/united-states-recording-laws/

Disclaimer

This overview is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Recording laws vary by jurisdiction and depend heavily on the specific facts of each situation. If you intend to record a conversation for use in litigation, employment matters, law enforcement, or another legal proceeding, consulting an attorney familiar with the applicable jurisdictions is recommended.

-

TLDR:

If Mr. Bingo and I were sitting in my living room, having a conversation. I can record him without his consent. If I were to call Mr. Bingo, from my location, to where he currently resides, I must acquire his permission before I record him.

HTH. 😇

I had a giant Braille manual for the Braille light. I don’t remember how many volumes it was, but it was a lot. I never learned how to use that thing with any audio manual. And even for the things that I did learn on it I definitely didn’t learn all of it. I don’t miss it though. Cause that thing that I had was the Braille like 2000. It only had 18 cell Braille display on it. And I don’t miss that advanced bar either. I don’t miss a tiny keyboard. Does that thing either. But it was what it was. I’m just glad it’s gone now.

You've done a grand job, Brian. But here's the thing: my line management responsibilities are carried out entirely in a UK context. Even if they were not, and even if we were in your living room, do you suppose that if I knew you were going to record our conversation, or if I suspected you might record our conversation, I would be as candid and open about things as I otherwise would be? I guarantee you that someone who wants to tell you about their long-term health condition and to ask for reasonable adjustments to be made is going to think more than twice about telling you all that if you're up to your recording capers.

Indeed not, and now you get a glimpse as to why most Americans are so damned paranoid.

Or at the very least, those of us with some semblance of intelligence are more careful with what we say, and to whom we say it too.

Of course, I shall, Plead the 5th, when it comes to certain US political parties... 🤐

See Sections 34-38 of the criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I would explain them to you, but your felicity in such researches suggests to me you'd rather enjoy looking at the provisions yourself.

Unlike our, "pleading the 5th", if someone does that in your neck of the woods, the jury can potentially use their silence against them, depending on circumstances at the time of the hearing. Do I have that right?

https://www.pastpaperhero.com/resources/sqe1-flk2-principles-and-procedures-to-admit-and-exclude-evidence-inferences-from-silence-ss3438-criminal-justice-and-public-order-act-1994

Thanks for starting the start, and for the information you provided in your original post. It is appreciated as always. 😊

//End attempting to stay on topic.

That is, if I may say so, an excellent summary, brian. s.34 - failure to mention facts on which you later rely - the jury may draw such inferences as appear proper from your silence, if it would have been reasonable to mention those facts. S.35 - failure to give evidence in your own defence - the jury may draw such inferences as appear proper from that failure, provided that the defendant has been warned of the consequences of such a failure. It is the trial judge's responsibility to chech with counsel, in the presence of the jury, that the defendant has been so warned. where the defendant represents himself, the trial judge must so warn the defendant. s.36 - failure to account for objects, marks etc. s.37 - failure to account for presence at scene - inferences are again possible, though in no case mandatory. There's a lot more to it than that but you have it right.

Circling back to the topic, one thing I do think sounds impressive is the implementation of AI within the architecture of the Braille editor. That does seem to me to be an indication that Blazie are a lot more proactive when it comes to software development than some other companies are. at least, that would appear to be the case for now. The true acid test is to ask whether they're still developing apace 18 months from now when the product itself is less novel. As I've said before, bingo will sit up and take notice when you can connect a BTBraille to the iPhone.

Apologies if this has already been beaten like the dead horse it is...

If simple notetaking is sought after in the professional world by those of us who are both professionals and VIPs, why do not more notetaking exclusive devices exist?
Or am I missing something here? 🤔

@Bingo,

I tell my friends this now and again, but I wish I had gone into law back when I was in college. I minored in criminal justice for about a year or so, but was at the time focused on computer science. And retrospect, I should've dropped CS and gone with CJS, as I find criminology in the criminal justice system to be quite fascinating.
Alas, I feel I am too old to try to go back to school nowadays. Maybe in my next life... 🤷