Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Court Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court reporters urge human oversight as commission weighs AI in official court transcripts
Summary
Stenographic court reporters and advocates told the commission that unregulated automatic speech recognition and AI‑assisted transcription risk accuracy, data sharing to unknown entities, and voice‑biometric exposure; they proposed human oversight and certification for official records.
Joel Carlson and Randianne Harvey, representing stenographic court reporters, urged the commission to require human oversight when AI or automatic speech recognition tools are used to produce official court transcripts.
Harvey said unregulated AI‑assisted ASR risks sharing hearing audio with unknown third parties and exposing private information and voice biometrics without consent. She noted Minnesota Judicial Branch policy 704 is a starting point but argued that guardrails are needed to preserve access to accurate verbatim records for appeals and other proceedings.
Matt Ealing (Minnesotans for Open Government) supported oversight and recommended labeling and attestation when government entities use AI in generating records or filings so the public can trace the provenance of government work product.
Members asked broad questions about where human oversight is appropriate across the justice system and raised concerns about errors, evidence standards and evolving public trust in AI vs human records. The commission agreed the issue warrants additional discussion with the Judicial Branch and other partners.
