Washtenaw County’s experiment with remote courtrooms and livestreamed hearings has opened the courthouse doors to more people — and, at the same time, cracked a few windows that let private details slip outside.
On February 6, Groundcover News published a report documenting several instances in which livestreams revealed identifying information and provoked alarm in the community. Those examples brought into sharper relief a growing tension: platforms like Zoom and YouTube have made court proceedings easier to attend, but they also introduce new privacy and safety hazards that existing courthouse rules weren’t built to handle.
Why the shift matters The move to digital hearings was driven by necessity and convenience. Courts pivoted to virtual tools to keep cases moving and to remove barriers for people who can’t travel, take time off work, or find childcare. Attendance rose. For many tenants, low-income litigants and people in rural areas, appearing remotely is less stressful and more feasible than an in-person trip downtown.
But the trade-offs are real. A recorded hearing is not ephemeral: it can be replayed, clipped into short segments, indexed by search engines, captioned and stored indefinitely on third-party servers. Automated transcripts and attached metadata can expose names, case numbers and other identifiers. Once footage leaves a court’s control, it can be repurposed in ways judges and participants never intended — from harassment to doxxing to targeted scams.
Concrete harms seen so far The Groundcover report and local accounts point to several worrying patterns. Landlord–tenant hearings posted online were later used by outside parties to harass participants. Minors and vulnerable witnesses have accidentally appeared on public streams. Metadata and captions made it easier to locate and reuse footage beyond its original context. These are not hypothetical risks: they’ve already materialized in Washtenaw County and elsewhere.
Where the vulnerabilities live Risk isn’t concentrated in a single place. It spreads across courts’ servers and networks, conferencing platforms, public video sites, and third-party indexing and captioning services. Not all vendors behave the same way: some offer tight access controls and short retention windows; others keep copies and claim broad rights over uploaded content. The legal protections, platform settings and internal court procedures together determine who can find, watch and reuse court materials — and how safely that happens.
Who’s especially exposed Certain people face much greater danger when hearings are recorded or streamed: – Children and adults with diminished capacity, whose presence can cause lifelong harm. – Crime victims and witnesses who may face intimidation or retaliation. – Jurors, whose anonymity is crucial to safety and impartiality. – Parties whose financial, medical or other sensitive records could enable identity theft or fraud.
Practical responses already in use Courts and advocates aren’t standing still. Several practical measures are proving helpful: – Tiered access: making high-risk hearings available only through restricted viewing rather than public streams. – Live redaction or segmented sessions: moving sensitive testimony to closed portions of a hearing or pausing public feeds during vulnerable moments. – Case-by-case sealing and robust takedown procedures: preventing publication or quickly removing material if it appears online. These tactics work best when paired with clear workflows, staff training and the right platform settings.
What courts should consider next To balance transparency with safety, courts can combine straightforward procedural rules with layered technical controls: – Define which hearing types are presumptively public and which should default to controlled access. – Require identity verification and limited viewer lists for sensitive proceedings. – Configure conferencing platforms to prevent local recording, disable public captions, and restrict cloud retention. – Adopt strict metadata practices so recordings don’t include searchable case identifiers. – Train clerks and audio/visual staff on redaction tools, session segmentation, and rapid takedown protocols. – Negotiate vendor contracts to limit how long providers store recordings and to secure deletion rights.
A clearer path forward Digital courtrooms have undeniable benefits. They can broaden civic participation and make the justice system more accessible. But those gains depend on thoughtful rules that anticipate how technology behaves in the real world. Washtenaw County’s experience — and the Groundcover reporting that highlighted it — should prompt courts to treat livestreaming as a policy choice, not a default. With layered safeguards, smarter platform settings and staff training, courts can preserve public access without leaving vulnerable people exposed to needless harm.