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

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>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.
> > 
> > 
> >