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... 🤷

I had the M40 at uni for a while on loan, but by this stage dialup was already behind us and we were Ethernet networked to the dorm. Perhaps, therefore, the modem-based email client demoed in Jonathan's review never came up for practical reasons, as well as other uses for the modem and serial ports. I do believe that pre-millennium model users were expected to connect Hayes-compatible modems to their units, but I can't get any evidence of this anymore, and all the current documentation for the units themselves of course make no mention of it because the programs were external.

So, although I think I have a basic idea, can someone turn up or describe the email client in detail, or provide documentation for it? Was it a single application that combined PPP, TCP/IP and POP/SMTP in one binary? What was the machine code used, and could you compile your own, or were you just limited to the BASIC terp they provided?

Curious minds …

If you are having the discussion on Brian's living room and he put cameras for security, that is legal. No expectations of privacy. He does not need to tell you. I believe you can do so in Texas, Illinois not sure. So the old saying is true, if is not true, do not say it. I believe a Roman emperor said it.

I do not know whether what you say is correct...but the USA is not the worlde, nor does it set the standard for the common law world. you will find that the UK's privacy laws are far more in line with what exists across the Commonwealth and those jurisdictions in europe that are common law jurisdictions, such as Norway.

Sad but true here if your property and you can put anything, if you put cameras for safety issues is your rights. I am sure someone will correct if mistaking. So if you visit the US, remember if if is not true, do not say it.

While it may be true that United States law has nothing to do with United Kingdom law, nor European Union law, our laws here cover an incredibly large land mass.
Incredibly large...
For example, both the United Kingdom and the European Union, together, could fit inside the United States. Feel free to look that up.

That is not to say the entire continent of Europe could, as the continent of Europe is larger than the United States. I am pointing this out simply to state that, when discussions about laws take place on a forum such as AppleVis, those of us in the US may compare our countries own laws to yours. Not because we believe our laws to be better than yours, but rather because our laws cover far more landmass than yours do, and what you call common law, we would call Federal law. Again, this is not about who's laws are better, simply comparing notes.

Take that as you will. 🤷

That post contains a number of syllogisms of questionable validity, but I shan't get super-granular on that. Who mentioned the EU? I most certainly and assuredly did not. I mentioned the common law world. That encompasses jurisdictions including England and Wales (there is no UK jurisdiction), scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, norway, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore - I could go on. Now, I don't know whether the whole of the common law world could fit inside the territory of the United states, but I doubt it. The United states, for these purposes, I am subtracting from my definition, so I should say all the jurisdictions bar the United States - or, at least, those states of the United States that are part of the common law world (Louisiana is not, for example). where, in my semantic prestidigitations, does the EU feature? You aren't telling me you fell into the trap of treating Europe and the EU as synonyms, are you? There are plenty of countries in Europe but not in the EU. besides, there can be no comparison between the legal order of the EU and that of the US because you're comparing the legal order of a federal nation state with that of a union of international sovereign nation states. Some EU member states are part of the common law world (The Republic of Ireland, Maltar), but others certainly are not.

Maybe the next 'Yes, your BtSpeak/BTBraille can do that now!' blod should run a special on which countries could safely fit inside one another. Then the country which can accommodate the most sovereign states within its territory can be our baseline comparator for everything - law, culture, food and so on. But then it would get problematic, wouldn't it? When trying to slot the UK into the jigsaw, for example, difficult questions would arise. are you including islands like sky? Dura? Islay? How about crown dependencies like the lands that appertain to the former duchy of Normandy - guernsey? Jersey? are you including those lands that appertain to the Guern Baileywick - alderney? Sark? Herm? What about those bits of UK territory separated by miles of sea with no intervening lands in between, like sT Mary and tresco? Does whatever we're fitting the UK inside of need to acccommodate the ten miles of atlantic between those places and the Cornish coast? Bingo, don't go on so! Well, you started it..

Actually, good sir, I think you started it. Allow me to explain.

On July 1, 8:03 AM (according to the timestamp), you posted a comment referenced in the link below concerning the legalities of recording people: https://applevis.com/comment/211083#comment-211083

On that same day, at 1:40 PM (according to the timestamp), I replied to your comment referencing my country's laws in relation to your comment. https://applevis.com/comment/211096#comment-211096

On July 2, at 5:38 PM (according to the timestamp, you stated the following in a reply to my comment referenced above:

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.

Let's take a look at that first line; responsibilities in a UK context. Are not my own responsibilities, comments, and context to be considered in a US perspective? No, I am not considering the UK in the EU as the same country, or even having the same laws. I was merely trying to explain how much territory the United States covers, over how much territory the United Kingdom covers. Over how much territory the European Union covers. It was meant to be nothing more than a reference of scale. Nothing more, nothing less. What you are suggesting I did, would be like comparing the United States to Canada. I want to impress on you that I, in fact, did not attempt to do that, directly or indirectly. If that is how you took my post, then there's nothing I can really do about that. You are, as they say, your own person.

Regarding comparisons, I think your definition of the term, and my use of it in my prior post, are vastly different. I was using the word comparison, because I did not at the time have a better vocabulary to articulate what I was trying to express to you. Again, this was a matter of emphasizing scale of territory, and how our laws work here, versus the scale of territory that your loss cover. You mentioned several countries under common law. My reply was that the entirety of the United States falls under federal law, this includes Alaska, the Islands of Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, the latter of which is not a United State, but is a US Territory.

Does this make more sense now? I am not sure how to explain my prior comment any simpler than this. 🫤

You are a brave person to try to argue with a lawyer. Unless you are also one, well if you are, I will not hold it against you. I think all know about this discussion. Beside in iPhone, now the person gets a alert that the phone is being recorder. Is that the same with android?

Are you asking about recording during a phone call? Yes, I think it's the same on Android.
One of my earlier comments in this thread has a whole laundry list of laws about recording in the US and even recording people overseas. It basically boils down to the law. Even States where one party consent is legal, when it comes to recording phone calls, the law tends to side with two party consent regulations. 🤷

Also, no, I am not a lawyer. I wish I had gone that route, but sadly, I chose computer science, were they heavy focus on Network Administration.

Yes, Also seriously law, glad you did not. We already have so many, just like bed bugs.

To get this back on topic, I had a chance to look at a type light and a typing speak. I have the same voice they’re basically the same functions. They just use a cord keyboard instead of a rail keyboard. I used to want an umbrella and when I was younger, just because I liked things that talked. I think it was like second grade the first time ITo get this back on topic, I had a chance to look at a type light and a typing speak. I have the same voice they’re basically the same functions. They just use a cord keyboard instead of a rail keyboard. I used to want an umbrella and speak when I was younger just because I liked things that talked. I think it was like second grade the first time I saw my umbrella speak. I don’t remember which brown note I looked at, but I never ended up getting one of those. Does anybody remember the keynote companion? That they have the keynote Gold Voice. I miss that one. I think we should get those voices back. As far as any of the other notetakers, I know people that have Braille sense and I think I saw one of those and I don’t remember which one because it was a long time ago. I know they’re not made by lazy, but that was the other. Don’t take her. Got a chance to look at.

I think I may have mentioned this speech engine before, but does anyone remember this? It was on very early Android, around the same time as SVOX. Relatively about the same quality as eloquence, maybe even DeckTalk not sure if I spelled that latter correctly).

I definitely don’t remember that. But then again, I wasn’t on anything android so that maybe the reason I don’t. Although this is probably a lot of speech and I’ve ever used. Basically the only ones I’ve ever had was Keynote, gold, eloquent, and vocalizer or whatever they call themselves now on Jaws it’s still called vocalizer expressive, so I’m just going with that as far as the meme of it. That’s the ones I use all the time now. Heck, I still have one of those Franklin language masters with a kind of keynote goldish Voice. It’s kind of issue because it’s not really the full file of the Voice. I don’t know exactly what they did to it but it’s not quite the same quality. I don’t think they make that dictionary with that voice anymore and I’ll even know if they even make that dictionary at all, but yeah, I still have one of those.

https://youtu.be/feHGNeRQMss?is=5PekVMTPH4EHEiui

A sample for you. Enjoy.

You should have been a lawyer. I have to hand it to you for going super-granular there. But I'm afraid you did what I tell my students not to do: in getting super-granular, you actualy simplified things so much they became more complicated. by the time I got to the end of your comment and didsection of the chronology, I'd forgotten the beginning! I actually rather enjoyed your assembling the world like an Ikea flat pack.

Now, back on topic, I have written to blazie about localisation. I really do like the way they appear to have set up the BTBraille. It seems much cleaner than the evolve.

One hex key to rule them all.
One hex key to find them.
One hex key to bring them all.
And in the darkness bind them.

Thanks for that sample. That voice is robotic. It kind of sounds like the Voice if that was possibly used in a couple of my college textbook. They used to have books that were made into audio versions directly by the book publisher and put on the CDs and they read with the voice like that it was awful. But it was what it was. They are just books from the publisher as close to the ones from learning a lot. Of course fact that it was the RFP when I first got my audiobook. Definitely glad they have improved our voices a lot since then. I mean, I could get you for that I guess.

my very first smart phone, a LG Optimus running Android 2.2, had that TTS system. And yeah, it was very robotic sounding, but it was, what it was, nearly 20 years ago. 🤷

, and i didn't know what a beta was. now, beta testing iOS, macOS and tvOS, it has become a pasion. when i was an android user, i used many voices. acapela, vocalizer, pico TTS, Voxygen, ivona, and i m so glad Paul is here via roona TTS. I used that for K 1000 back in version twelve, which i still have, on Disk. not sure what to do with that. when I first got indroduced to computing, I used a Braille and Speak. it was very robotic, but it was what it was, in 2000. then I got into using JAWS, when the Braille and speak, was talking in an even more robotic voice, and my teacher couldn't fix it. something I didn't like at the time, was a delay in JAWS when semicolens were announced as compaired to the Braille and Speak. I couldn't afford JAWS, so i had a program called connect out loud installed on the family computer. it worked well enough, but it was a demo which had to be reinstalled after twenty four hours of use. then I dabled in beta testing, with JAWS 9.0

Oh definitely I’ve totally come a long way. I still think it’s funny. How many robotic voices are still around though. Like we still have access to the big voices and all of those earlier Apple voices are pretty robotic so yeah they are what they are. I’ve actually used some of those Apple voices. I’ve definitely used like junior and Cathy and Agnes before I used Fred once and yeah, like I said sometimes I use those. It’s cool. It’s crazy how fast the technology has changed and how much better it’s gotten. Yeah I don’t love the voices of the brown speaks not the older ones anyway. Double yes we totally need that back.

Wish I could remember the TTS that was on my book port plus. I got that device back in 2013, I want to say it used pico TTS, but I'm really not sure.

Edit: I meant to say that I used to use this device as a notetaker, back in the day.