> [Dude's lawyer] said he did not object to the use of video-conferencing for Friday’s call since it was only to receive the judge’s verdict, which could be heard clearly, and no other legal arguments were presented. Ignoring the general privacy concerns of "does a non-contracted company need access to video of a legal proceeding?", this particular instance seems pretty benign. There wasn't an actual trial going on or anything. They could have accomplished the same thing with semaphores or smoke signals.