

Why did the US Government claim Kindle violates civil rights? - cwan
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Why-did-feds-claim-Kindle-violates-civil-rights_-1006723-99801389.html

======
protomyth
This is the scariest line of the article: 'Now, Perez is at work on a far
bigger project, one that could eventually declare the Internet a "public
accommodation" under the ADA. That could result in a raft of new Justice
Department regulations for disabled access to all sorts of Web sites.'

~~~
parfe
_In 2008, Minneapolis-based retailer Target Corp. agreed to pay $6 million to
the National Federation of the Blind, a Baltimore-based advocacy group, to
settle charges that the design of Target's retail pages on its website
illegally denied access to the visually impaired._

It already started a couple years ago.

[http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100727/NEWS/10072...](http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100727/NEWS/100729917)

~~~
protomyth
It is one thing for a mult-national business, but I am a little worried that
some expensive regs will hit non-business sites.

~~~
parfe
Think the Justice Department is going to be checking market cap before sending
out ADA letters?

~~~
protomyth
That's what I'm worried about. Not everyone has the resources to make
everything accessible to everyone.

------
alxp
This article is libertarian bullshit.

"The market" doesn't solve problems that aren't profitable. Apple have been
stellar at creating accessible devices and software for a long time and it's
wonderful that they include these features for free. Screen reader software
for Windows costs a fortune, and while it is more full-featured it's often
overkill for someone who isn't totally blind but just has trouble seeing a
normal high-resolution screen.

Amazon and Google (with Android) and other tech newcomers are not going to
think about accessibility unless there is a stronger force than "the market"
pushing them to.

So, if it means adding accessibility features is a necessary condition to
being awarded an education contract, I'm all for it.

~~~
jerf
I'll buy that, if you'll also agree that this ruling is liberal bullshit. Even
if it conforms to the letter of the law, it is definitely not the intent of
the law.

Please note I'm not asking anyone to be less liberal or care less about the
ADA; I'm simply observing this is a violation of the intent of the law and of
common sense. The fault here is the government's, I'm not pinning this on
liberalism in general.

This sort of thing is actually dangerous; it generates anti-ADA sentiment in
the public at large. Which would be unfortunate, as the ADA is broadly a good
idea. (There are corners I can quibble about, but that's because I'm the
contentious sort. It's mostly good.)

Also, even as a little-l libertarian, I would observe that much of the reason
the market was "solving" this before the government clumsily stepped in is
that the market was well aware that this requirement was coming as a result of
the already-existing ADA law. They probably just thought that maybe the
government would let them run a test project _before_ they tried to put it
into production, at which point they would dot their is and cross their ts,
something I find a rather reasonable assumption. Markets are very, very good
at serving the majority, and they are very, very good at serving niches with
resources proportional to the size of the niche, but if you want the entire
market to serve a niche for social reasons you will need government
intervention to do it.

~~~
anamax
> if you want the entire market to serve a niche for social reasons you will
> need government intervention to do it.

That doesn't tell us who should pay the costs.

If "the people" think that something is a good idea, "the people" should pay
for it.

~~~
jerf
"The people" are paying for it. I am not deluded into thinking the ADA is
free. They pay in generally raised prices, somewhat slower economic
development, and the projects that are never born because they couldn't comply
with the ADA, which this project nearly fell under.

It is not anti-little-l-libertarian for a people to democratically agree to
pay a little extra via governmental means to accomplish something the market
isn't good at. It is anti-capital-L-Libertarian, but I'm not claiming that's
what I am.

The real problem is not that our society thinks the ADA is a good idea, the
real problem is that for things that like we allow ourselves to be
systematically deceived that the cost of the ADA is zero, and we don't have to
think about the costs and benefits. This is a pervasive problem; neither
liberalism nor conservatism includes explicit concepts of analyzing things for
costs and benefits, which is why I consider neither philosophy directly
applied actually suitable for ruling us. It's a very good idea to have
underlying principles for your governing philosophy but they must always be
filtered through a worldview that acknowledges our finiteness.

(Also, I am a little-l-libertarian, so when I said I'm not pinning this on
liberalism in general, it is not because I was not a wee bit tempted. It was
because it wouldn't be fair or true.)

~~~
anamax
> "The people" are paying for it.

My claim is that they don't see that they're paying for it and they should.
This isn't ADA-specific.

------
DennisP
The Kindle may not have been perfectly suited for blind people, but I don't
understand why printed textbooks aren't worse.

~~~
Timmy_C
Under US federal law publishers are required to provide some compatible format
such as ICADD, SGML or ASCII that easily be translated to braille.

~~~
DennisP
But if they're providing an alternative for printed books, why can't they
provide the same alternative for the Kindle?

~~~
Timmy_C
I'm not making an argument about publishers and accessibility of textbooks.
I'm just stating a fact that was overlooked in the article.

------
aplusbi
I wonder if there is a market for a braille-based ebook reader. Refreshable
braille displays already exist and it doesn't seem like it would be that
difficult to build one in an ebook form factor that could read ebook formats.

Edit: I looked into it a bit. The refreshable braille displays on the market
are very bulky, primarily so they can deal with the necessary wear and tear.
While I'm sure a smaller, lighter version is possible (especially since it
doesn't need features like cursor location) I wonder how small you can
actually make it before you drastically cut down on its life.

------
dkarl
_Of course, most Web access problems are already being solved by the market,
but that won't stop the Justice Department's zealous civil rights enforcer._

I just came in to hear the guffaws of the UI designers over this one. The UI
guys where I work have read a lot about accessibility and think it's
fascinating. Boy, will they be excited if they ever get a chance to add
accessibility to a real product.

------
ahi
I will not state an opinion on the content of the article. I am unsure what is
and isn't true. What may be helpful to know is that the Examiner is not highly
regarded in the district. It is little more than a tabloid for the district's
rich lawyers. [http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/30063/its-all-
in...](http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/30063/its-all-in-black-and-
white)

------
thrill
A government that has an expansive attitude is like a positive feedback loop -
we all know how that eventually ends - at best we get oscillations.

------
jessriedel
Anyone have version of this story which isn't dripping in sensationalism?

