Interesting People mailing list archives

IP: I lied -- one more FINAL more on DO READ!!!! Justice Department crackdown

From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 16:15:27 -0400

From: "Lawrence L. Andrew" <andrewl () uiu-fayette-1 uiu edu>
Organization: Upper Iowa University
To: farber () cis upenn edu
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 15:08:59 CST

Dave,

I have to take issue with this last posting on several points.

Mr. Sims MAY be correct in his evaluation that the 
law makes no mention of the general public's websites or 
government suppliers.  However, a brief look at history would show 
that once a law has been passed, it's original intent may be changed 
considerably in practice, as the courts today see legislation and the 
Constitution as documents "in process" rather than written in stone.  
This allows many such laws to be interpreted in very broad terms 
which may well include both suppliers and public web sites.  NOBODY 
can predict what will happen once such a bill becomes law.   Congress 
has tried to several times recently to place certain laws in effect, 
only to be re-interpreted by the courts, or have parts of the bill 
overturned as unconstitutional.

Also, my reading of history seems to show that once the government 
becomes involved in an area of our lives it rarely (dare I say 
Never?) relinquishes any control it has gained, only gaining More 
involvement over time.  And this is the issue to which I believe the 
reporters were alluding.  The broad brush with which our federal 
government has been painting its involvement in such issues as civil 
rights and access for the disabled has intruded more and more into 
private business and shows NO signs of stopping.  Why should 
requirements for federal websites be any different?

A recent IP posting mentioned a proponent of this issue speaking of 
the Internet as a Government creation (i.e., not a private 
enterprise) and calling it a Civil Rights issue.  Is this not just 
what Mr. McCullagh et al were concerned with?  Another intrusion into 
our lives by a juggernaught federal system running out of control?  
OK, so that's a bit of an exaggeration (maybe....) but 
that's the whole point:  At just what level should the federal 
government rightfully intrude upon our lives due to a compelling 
public interest?  And at what point do our individual rights preclude 
government intervention, public interest be damned?  These are issues 
on which the outcome depends on your philosophy of the place of 
government.

I would suggest that the reporters in question (whom I disagree with 
on a number of issues) WERE asking the Correct Questions and looking 
at the Probable outcome and effects of such a law.  With all due 
respect, Mr. Sims comments seem woefully naive in light of the issues 
and history.
Larry
===============================================

Date:          Sat, 01 May 1999 14:48:51 -0400
To:            ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com
From:          Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Subject:       IP: FINAL more on DO READ!!!!   Justice Department crackdown on we
Reply-to:      farber () cis upenn edu

Guess my only final comment is if the reporters were confused then how about confusion of the ACTUAL Committee 
Members about both the law and the technology they were charged to examine. 

Dave

From: "Michael Sims" <jellicle () inch com>
To: farber () cis upenn edu
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 10:57:50 -0400

With all due respect, there's a lot of confusion here.  Maria 
Seminerio, Adam Powell and Declan McCullagh, the reporters who've 
been spreading this FUD, have willfully disregarded the actual law in 
question - this story is based solely on a single interview with two 
members of a government committee, who seem to be as confused as the 
reporters they were talking to.

The actual law, available at:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508law.html

makes no mention of any standards regarding the general public's 
websites, or even government suppliers.  It says solely that Federal 
government agencies must ensure that their electronic services are 
equally available to disabled Federal employees and disabled 
citizens.  The implementation date is two years from August 1998, so 
it's not exactly right around the corner, either.  That's it; nothing 
else; there's no stealth plan to take over the internet and make 
people publish their websites in Braille.

Here's a basic FAQ on section 508:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/deptofed.html

It's sad that some reporters are totally incapable of using 
outside sources to verify that their stories are correct and 
truthful.  A simple reading of the actual government law would have 
shown any of the three reporters that the story is wildly inaccurate, 
and common sense would have told them that a law regulating the 
general public's websites in such a manner would also be wildly 
unconstitutional.

--
Michael Sims                            The Censorware Project
                                        http://censorware.org
The Supreme Court has stated that the public interest served by FOIA is the
interest in letting citizens know 'what their government is up to.' 489 US. at 773.

Current thread:

IP: I lied -- one more FINAL more on DO READ!!!! Justice Department crackdown Dave Farber (May 01)