Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Keep the Focus Outline

Animated GIF screen capture of Virgin America site.
This animated GIF is a screen capture of cycling through every interactive element (mostly links) on the page using just the tab key. You'll note that in all but one case, the only indication of any change is in the lower left in the browser's status bar where it shows the URL of the destination link. The URLs ending in a "#" are the booking options.

Today's rant is inspired by all the gushing over Virgin America's new web site — just because it's responsive.

To be fair to Virgin America, making its site responsive is a huge win for users whose primary method of booking is via a smartphone or tablet (or, god forbid, phablet or tablone). Its new site, however, is a huge step backward for users who rely on the keyboard as their primary method of interaction.

Virgin America's CSS has a style to identify anchors with focus (yes, there are other elements that should get focus, but I am looking at just the most basic support): a:focus {outline: thin dotted;}

What's so frustrating is that the useful style is then overridden with this harmful declaration: a:focus {outline: none;} This override greatly decreases the usability and accessibility of the site. Unfortunately, this practice is still common on many more sites across the web.

As a web developer, one of the simplest accessibility tests you can do is unplug your mouse. Two quick things to review as part of that: Can you interact with all controls with only the keyboard? Can you tell which item has focus?

Even if you aren't motivated to run that simple test from an overriding sense of being nice to your users, there's a legal concern here. As I wrote last week, the U.S. Department of Justice held H&R block accountable to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Level A and AA Success Criteria. That means there is case law for making your consumer-facing site comply or face penalties.

By excluding focus styles, Virgin America is running afoul of one of the AA Requirement 2.4.7:

2.4.7 Focus Visible: Any keyboard operable user interface has a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visible. (Level AA)

In short, if your site doesn't make interaction elements obvious when accessed via keyboard, not only are you hurting users, you're opening yourself up to litigation.

Further Reading

Again, this isn't a new issue. It even has its own mini-site at OutlineNone.com, which offers these handy links:

To add another, this article, When Do Elements Take the Focus?, might be handy to understand just when you can expect to see :focus styles get applied by a browser.

Related

In March I wrote about how Google removed underlines from search result links. My concern there was that web developers might follow suit. Between removing keyboard focus indicators and underlines from links, I am amazed that developers do so much to make the core interaction element of the web essentially hidden to so many users. I am reproducing the list of related links here as they are relevant to the overall issue of keeping links usable:

My Efforts to Reach Virgin America (so far)

I may have contacted Virgin America on Twitter once. Or Twice. Or three times. Perhaps even a fourth time. And filed a bug with WebCompat.com. And left a comment at Wired's article. I've embedded the tweets below so you an retweet if you are as whiny as I.

Update: June 27, 2014

On December 12, 2013 a rule became effective from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) titled Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports. That links points to the following section on accessibility:

Finally, we proposed a tiered implementation approach in which the WCAG 2.0 standard at Level A and AA would apply to (1) a new or completely redesigned primary Web site brought online 180 or more days after the effective date of the final rule; […]

As keyboard accessibility is one of the requirements of WCAG AA compliance, Virgin America's new site does not honor this rule. However, if the Virgin site officially launched before June 10, 2014, then it squeaks by on a date technicality.

More information on the implications of the law are in the post New accessibility rules coming to airline websites. Are you ready?

Update: July 21

It took just over a month, but Virgin America responded to me:

I don't see any reason to follow and/or direct message to share more information. I have this blog post, which I've linked repeatedly. I think that's plenty. I responded and asked if or when the issue would be fixed, but I've been met with silence. Perhaps in another month I'll hear more.

In the meantime, given the amount of action the below tweet of mine has gotten, I know I am not alone in thinking that disabling the focus outline is generally a bad idea:

Update: October 15, 2014 — Screen Reader Walk-Through

Marcy Sutton, at the JSConf, provided a walk-through of the Virgin America web site experience using a screen reader. It does a great job of showing what a terrible experience this site has created. I've embedded it below, bracketed to the relevant part of her talk, or you can view it directly on YouTube (starting at 0:20).

Update: October 23, 2014

Here is a video of the screen reader walk-through, pulled from the latest version of Marcy Sutton's slides on Angular Accessibility:

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Verizon Using Disabilities to Fight Net Neutrality

On Friday, Mother Jones reported that it has three sources saying that Verizon lobbyists are making a case on Capitol Hill that net neutrality harms those with disabilities. From Mother Jones:

Three Hill sources tell Mother Jones that Verizon lobbyists have cited the needs of blind, deaf, and disabled people to try to convince congressional staffers and their bosses to get on board with the fast lane idea. But groups representing disabled Americans, including the National Association of the Deaf, the National Federation of the Blind, and the American Association of People with Disabilities are not advocating for this plan. Mark Perriello, the president and CEO of the AAPD, says that this is the "first time" he has heard "these specific talking points."

In the absence of seeing the language Verizon is using, I can only go on what Mother Jones reported (other news outlets covering this are linking back to Mother Jones). Given the amount of cash ISPs like Verizon are lobbying to kill net neutrality ($19 million in the first quarter of 2014 alone), I don't consider this report to be far-fetched. Certainly Verizon is unlikely to make this argument in the open — there will be a backlash when no proof is offered and disability rights groups shoot it down (as has been happening just on these rumors).

It seems to me it is in the best interest of net neutrality to react as if this report is true. Further, it seems like a good idea to make it clear disabilities cannot be used as a pawn in some armchair morality action, no matter how well elected officials feel it may poll.

I was pretty quick to jump on this on Twitter, mostly out of anger, and given the retweets and favorites from my meager following (particularly from the accessibility community) I suspect I am not alone. Feel free to retweet it to your followers (or write your own):

A quick Google search (or use your own search terms) will net you many results from people who think Verizon's reported argument is absurd (Won't somebody please think of the childrendisabled?).

I don't think my blog post, which ranks nowhere on Verizon's radar, will do much to sway its nor the FCC's opinion, but I do want to make sure I add to the growing chorus of people publicly denouncing something Verizon is arguing behind closed doors.

Related

In April I wrote a post about net neutrality (We Need to Raise a Stink about Net Neutrality) where I asked people to tweet to Tom Wheeler and the FCC. In it I include plenty of references and arguments, but this video from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (which I amended to my original post) does a better job of explaining net neutrality:

As John Oliver suggests, you can leave our own comments at the FCC site. As of a week ago there were 49,206 comments. As of this writing there are 115,213 comments. Only the most recent 10,000 comments are available to be viewed, which I cannot explain. Further, if you want to consider accessibility, as Verizon seemingly does, you may want to also ask the electronically filed responses be made available in a format other than PDF.

Update: July 25, 2014

Perhaps in reaction to the Verizon rumors, or just because the cause makes sense, on July 18 five different organizations related to accessibility filed their own joint comments with the FCC. The organizations are: Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI), the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), the Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA), the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network (DHHCAN)), and the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications Access (RERC-TA) along with Professor Clayton Lewis. Together they filed a brief, which you may read online (and which I have copied locally as I suspect this URL will be allowed to rot by the FCC), outlining their support of net neutrality. An excerpt:

[We] seek to promote equal access for the 48 million Americans who are deaf, hard of hearing, late-deafened, deaf-blind, or deaf with mobility or cognitive disabilities to the informational, educational, cultural, and societal opportunities afforded by the telecommunications revolution.

The letter outlines six arguments in particular, with far more detail in its sixteen pages:

  1. Retaining and improving transparency rules will improve the ability of consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing to access the Internet on equal terms.
  2. A no-blocking rule would help ensure the availability of accessible telecommunications services for consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing.
  3. The Commission should bar paid prioritization while ensuring that Internet-based services and applications are accessible to consumers who are deaf or head of hearing.
  4. Title II reclassification would afford the Commission additional flexibility to ensure that broadband services are accessible, and the Commission should exclude accessibility-related Title II provisions from forbearance if it reclassifies.
  5. The Commission should ensure that the enterprise services and premise operator exceptions avoid facilitating illegal discrimination against people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
  6. The Commission should ensure that the use of data caps do not result in discrimination against people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

The same day, the American Association of People with Disabilities and the National Council on Independent Living also filed their own joint letter with the FCC (also available from a non-FCC URL). In addition to an open internet, the letter argues for an ombudsman:

Over the past few years, Congress shifted the focus of universal service from mere availability to adoption and utilization. […] This important review of Open Internet policy provides an opportunity to ensure that people with disabilities have full and open access to broadband communications and enjoy the important consumer protections mentioned in our comments. […] An Ombudsman Office Can Monitor and Report on Access Issues Associated with Consumers with Disabilities

Ars covered the latter filing in its Tuesday post, "Deaf advocacy groups to Verizon: Don’t kill net neutrality on our behalf."

at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, June 8, 2014

Accessibility Regulation Confusion from U.S. Government

There has been some activity lately from the U.S. federal government related to accessibility requirements for web sites. Unfortunately, that activity is sending a mixed message to many burdened with making a case for accessibility compliance in the private sector.

Good News

The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) made news in the accessibility community back in March by issuing a Consent Decree in a case with H&R Block requiring H&R Block to follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. From the DoJ press release:

On Dec. 11, 2013, the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts filed a complaint in intervention in the lawsuit National Federal [sic] of the Blind (NFB) et al. v. HRB Digital LLC et al. to enforce Title III of the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act]. […]

[…] The recognized international industry standards for web accessibility, known as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, can be found online and are freely available to help companies ensure that individuals with disabilities can fully and equally enjoy their web-based goods and services.

Under the terms of the five year decree, H&R Block’s website, tax filing utility and mobile apps will conform to the Level AA Success Criteria of the WCAG 2.0. […] H&R Block will also pay $45,000 to the two individual plaintiffs, and a $55,000 civil penalty.

Essentially the DoJ stepped into a lawsuit, identified an accepted standard to follow, and put some teeth in its action in the form of a financial penalty (both in cash and H&R Block's cost to rebuild its offerings). For those who champion accessibility, this is a win.

It's not the first. Back in 2012 the DoJ filed a Statement of Interest in a battle between Netflix (never mind that it's in a PDF) and the National Association of the Deaf that the absence of closed captioning violates the ADA. Earlier this year it also filed a Statement of Interest in a case against Lucky Brand Jeans (another PDF) for its inaccessible customer-facing credit card swipe machines (which probably inhabit far more stores than just Lucky's).

The DoJ has effectively been enforcing ADA laws for private entities, not just state and local governments. This is A Good Thing™

Bad News

Let's ignore the fact that the DoJ can't get the name of the National Federation of the Blind correct in a press release, or that the ADA site provides Statements of Interest from the DoJ as PDF files (you can learn some more about PDF accessibility at Denis Boudreau's a11y Tips site).

The Laws

The DoJ was expected to release a set of legally binding standards for web site accessibility back in April. That deadline flew by with hardly a word from the DoJ. Instead, buried in a Unified Agenda (a catch-all planning document), The DoJ casually mentioned that it's been delayed until March of 2015. You can credit Seyfarth Shaw LLP for catching that one.

As the Law Office of Lainey Feingold notes, this has been happening for years:

The web regulations have been pending since July 26, 2010 when the DOJ issued its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM). The public comment period ended on January 24, 2011. Ever since then, the DOJ has been announcing deadlines for the next step — and then moving those deadlines as the target date approaches.

Enforcement

The H&R Block Consent Decree has some dates associated with adhering to the ruling. One of them (14.d) has come and gone:

  1. Web Accessibility Policy [underline theirs, not mine]: By June 1, 2014, H&R Block shall adopt and implement a Web Accessibility Policy consistent with the attachment at Exhibit A and as approved by the Private Plaintiffs and the United States. By June 1, 2014, H&R Block shall: […]
    1. make publicly available and directly link from the www.hrblock.com homepage, a statement of H&R Block’s policy to ensure that persons with disabilities have full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of H&R Block, through www.hrblock.com, its mobile applications, and its Online Tax Preparation Product; […]

When I visit the H&R Block home page, I see no link or content related to accessibility, disabilities, nor the ADA (if I am wrong, please correct me). I even made an archived version from the Wayback Machine so you can see it in case H&R Block changes it tomorrow (see how you can make your own).

Granted, that requirement is only a week overdue, but given that the DoJ is four years overdue on issuing regulations, one could argue that deadlines don't carry much weight with the DoJ.

Just Setting a Good Example

The DoJ site itself is not exactly a shining beacon of accessibility. From the odd image map on the logo (really, one image, two links to the same location?) to text as images, it could use some help. If you head over to the DoJ Acccessibility Information page you will see it states that the DoJ is committed to provide its content in accordance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

If you've been working in web accessibility, then you may be aware of the government web site devoted to Section 508, which requires that Federal agencies’ electronic and information technology is accessible to people with disabilities, and which is intended to be used by federal employees: Section508.gov

As I challenged on Twitter, try using it with your keyboard. Go ahead. Just try it.

For the more technical among my readers, here's an example of the CSS declarations of agony (files linked in this tweet):

For added fun, find the Skip link and then see where it takes you.

The government body in charge of creating rules for making sites accessible is built based on the requirements of a federal site that itself is a complete cluster. It may, in fact, be a brilliant parody site showing government workers how not to build a compliant site.

Or it might really be the best they can do.

What You Should Do

Keep coding (or start coding) your sites to meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Level A and AA Success Criteria. This is the requirement the DoJ put in its ruling against H&R Block, the most recent example we have of where the federal government is defining a standard.

And then stop worrying. As WebAIM notes, fear of litigation isn't the best reason to make a site accessible. You should do it because it's the right thing to do. Of course, in my HTML5 Developer Conference talk, I argue that making accessibility all about you (slide 13) is probably a more effective means of getting developers to implement, but I leave that decision up to your personal level of narcissism.

Related

  • Assets, the accessible, Bootstrap-based development framework from the federal government (really from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services).

Update: June 9, 2014

Read my post about Assets, the U.S. government framework based on Bootstrap 3, and PayPal's accessibility plug-in, which promises to make your existing Bootstrap implementation accessible: Accessible Bootstrap Frameworks

Update: June 25, 2014

In a release last week from the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), the NFB and a blind business owner reached an agreement with the Small Business Administration because its web site violated Section 508 (read a brief from the law firm representing the NFB). This is newsworthy for two reasons:

  • The SBA is a government agency and is being held to the only current federal law pertaining to web site accessibility, effectively stating the government has to follow its own rules.
  • The Section508.gov site, the one housing the rules to which the SBA is being held, doesn't follow those very rules, as I noted above.

I am struggling to find a way to describe how absurd this is. I am open to suggestions.

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 27, 2014

We Need to Raise a Stink about Net Neutrality

Image showing the base price of a fake company's DSL connection, with add-on pricing for access to groups of web sites, such as streaming sites, news sites, shopping sites, etc.
Found this on the Twitters in @CypherTheDane's tweet. Read a full-text version of this graphic.

In January I wrote about the latest risk to net neutrality here in the U.S (Net Neutrality News). Unsurprisingly, the only change since then is that net neutrality is more at risk, despite some brief outcry and even a million-signature petition.

You should care. We should all care. Remember, it's just a matter of time before that thing you like to do on the Internet is throttled down to painfully slow in favor of that other thing you don't like on the Internet.

Want to play a video game with your friends? Maybe Microsoft is paying to prioritize its XBox traffic over your Sony Playstation. Want to watch Netflix? Good thing Netflix is already paying for priority access and probably passing that cost on soon enough. Want to found an internet business and compete with the likes of Twitter? Ask your funding source to compete with Twitter's pocketbook just to get access.

The thing is, as consumers (which include those of us on our couches and those of us running a business) we cannot afford to stand by and hope this sorts itself out in favor of anyone but the telecommunications industry.

Why We Cannot Hope for the Best

I am loathe to dive directly into politics here. Few people want to hear me rant about my plan for outlawing Crocs and regulating the chocolate industry to require that white chocolate is made with real cocoa butter. However, this is important.

We can look to our president and hope that he is going to stand up for net neutrality. We can even feel good about a promise he made in 2007 when running for office (as reported by Cnet):

I am a strong supporter of Net neutrality. What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you're getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites…so you could get much better quality from the Fox News site and you'd be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites. And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet—which is that there is this incredible equality there.

He seemed to get it. He referenced Fox News, arguably his biggest mass media critic then and now, as someone who could pay for more access. I thought we could count on this guy.

Except President Obama has made other promises that haven't panned out (like every other modern president, of course), including ones that have led to the situation we're in now. Relevant here is his campaign promise to not put lobbyists in his administration, which Politifact rated as broken as early as 2009.

The FCC's current chairman, Tom Wheeler, is an example of that broken promise. Tom Wheeler's FCC bio lists his books and some of his jobs. It fails to note, however, his roles as President of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) (1992-2004), both lobbying organizations.

It's easy to make the case that his nomination to the FCC post is a function of his campaign donations. For Obama's first run at the presidency, Wheeler raised between $200,000 and $500,000 and personally gave $28,500 to the Obama Victory Fund. For Obama's re-election campaign he hosted a $5,000 to $20,000 per plate fundraising lunch.

To recap, the guy in charge of making the decision over net neutrality is a former lobbyist for the very industry that wants to prevent net neutrality. He likely got this job as a function of his financial support for getting his future boss elected. It seems unlikely net neutrality will find a friend in either Tom Wheeler or President Obama.

Realizing that this is the kind decision that the FCC and White House might be motivated to make quietly, someone took the time to start a petition on WhiteHouse.gov (the ideal armchair activist site). The idea here is that once (if) it hits 100,000 signatures, the White House (President Obama, but likely his proxy) will have to respond.

If the White House truly complied with its own rules about honoring 100,000 signatures with a response, then we might have gotten a non-answer (though I hoped for a deportation) on the Justin Bieber petition. Ok, that one is clearly a tongue-in-cheek (not really) petition, but others have been ignored altogether, resulting in a petition to get petitions answered (a similar one from 2011 didn't get a response even after it met the then-25,000 signature limit).

Sadly, the FCC is making its own decision on or shortly after May 15. The petition closes 9 days later, so there is no way the White House will be issuing a response before the FCC is already off to the races.

Maybe you can find help via Congress, although you'll probably not get it from the likes of people like Lamar Smith or others who demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the internet with regard to SOPA and PIPA (or demonstrated that they were easily bought by special interest).

What To Do?

Sign the petition. Ideally it will hit 100,000 signatures before its close date and before the FCC's May 15 date. Just maybe the FCC will listen before it goes and breaks the internet for Americans.

The FCC has set up an email address, openinternet@fcc.gov, to solicit comments from the general public. Use it.

Maybe write a blog post, or a news article, or something visible to the general public to help add to the public discontent.

Then express your displeasure, repeatedly, by tweeting, calling, emailing, and so on, the White House, the President, your representatives, the FCC, and for good measure perhaps the first lady, the press, and the (sadly, now deceased) emperor of San Francisco.

Here, I've started a couple tweets for you:

.@BarackObama Honor your campaign promise to maintain net neutrality. (Tweet it)

.@TomWheelerFCC @FCC Guarantee all Americans have access to the internet and our own government by maintaining and codifying net neutrality. (Tweet it)

Related

Update: May 2, 2014

Bill Stewart has written an excellent post that attempts to explain to those who are less technical than the average developer why net neutrality is important. Go read it and share it: Explaining Why Net Neutrality is Important

Update: May 13, 2014

If you're still a bit confused on net neutrality and have 11 minutes to spare for a primer, take this one for a spin:

Update: June 7, 2014

On Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, he takes just over 13 minutes to explain, justify, and then instruct how to defend net neutrality. I have embedded the video below, but for those who just want to act, he points out that the FCC has decided to take comments from the public, which you can do at: fcc.gov/comments, or specifically proceeding 14-28.

As of this writing, there are 49,206 comments, only the most recent 10,000 of which (for reasons unknown) can be viewed (oddly, with addresses) in PDF format (which I cannot explain) at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=14-28

If you still aren't sure why you should take the time to do this, I present John Oliver's argument:

Update: August 30, 2014

I stumbled across this piece that, while a little late to the party, lists examples of where phone and cable companies have already been violating any prior agreements or statements to honor any kind of unofficial net neutrality: Net Blocking: A Problem in Need of a Solution

Update: November 10, 2014

President Obama appears to have finally remembered the promise he made while running in 2007. Having waited until the last minute, ignored petitions, ignored general calls from industry, he has finally outlined some high-level guidelines and asked the FCC to maybe consider them (I left the tt elements in place in the citation below, though I don't know they are there):

  • No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
  • No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
  • Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
  • No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

Despite this positive statement, I think this quote is more telling (subject-verb agreement issues notwithstanding): The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone.

In short, he's doing nothing.

at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Changes to EU Cookie Law

This post originally appeared on the Algonquin Studios blog.

Information Commissioner's Office logo. I was recently asked by a client whether or not the cookie law will apply to its overseas business. As a reference, he provided a link to the Computer Weekly article “How to comply with the EU cookie law.”

It's a handy article, but as with most reference material on the web there is no date on the article to give an indication how recent it is. Rules have changed a bit since the law was passed and so the requirements aren't quite so clear anymore.

It is still a regulation, though watered down. Instead of asking explicit permission, you can now get by under implied consent by linking to a cookie policy page from every page on your site. The content of that policy page is still informed by the law. More information on implied consent is available in this PDF.

Enforcement is a different story. My understanding is that enforcement is arbitrary and based on end-user complaints, at which point I think a slap on the wrist and request to make the cookie policy link more prominent may be all that is demanded (I haven't found any verified examples yet).

Obviously I am not an EU citizen nor an expert in international law, but I think you'll find feedback from appropriate counsel would be similar (though probably a bit more risk averse).

For more detail, you can read up on current language of the law at the ICO page (the folks who came up with the law) which includes this clarifying content (dated January 31, 2013):

We first introduced a notice about cookies in May 2011, and at that time we chose to ask for explicit consent for cookies. We felt this was appropriate at the time, considering that many people didn’t know much about cookies and what they were used for. We also considered that asking for explicit consent would help raise awareness about cookies, both for users and website owners. Since then, many more people are aware of cookies — both because of what we’ve been doing, and other websites taking their own steps to comply. We now consider it’s appropriate for us to rely on a responsible implementation of implied consent, as indeed have many other websites.

at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Net Neutrality News

If you're spitting-mad about the W3C's perceived position on DRM, we would all be better served if you re-pointed that anger at what is happening to net neutrality.

If you aren't familiar with the net neutrality concept, here's a snippet from Wikipedia:

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.

Think of it this way: If Time Warner wants to prioritize its own movie-on-demand services for home cable internet subscribers, it could make traffic slower for users of Netflix, or for video gamers, or for families looking up cancer information on WebMD. Think if Verizon signs a deal with Sony to prioritize for Sony devices or movies for its FiOS customers.

Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia effectively ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doesn't have the authority to make internet service providers (ISPs) treat all internet traffic equally. You can read the full decision in this unfortunate PDF at the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit web site.

I think this is bad.

There are lots of bits of news popping up to cover this, most of them explaining why this is bad and linking to resources. I'll link some below, but as soon as I publish this post it will be out of date as more articles, blog posts, and general rants are bound to come. So you should keep your ear to the ground.

Remember, it's just a matter of time before that thing you like to do on the Internet is throttled down to painfully slow in favor of that other thing you don't like on the Internet.

  1. Court Strikes Down FCC Open Internet Order at Free Press.
  2. The Fight to Save Net Neutrality also at Free Press and links to some resources and history.
  3. Court strikes down FCC’s net neutrality rules, agency may appeal at Gigaom.
  4. What you need to know about the court decision that just struck down net neutrality also at Gigaom.
  5. Verizon Victory on Net-Neutrality Rules Seen as Loss for Netflix at Bloomberg Technology.
  6. Court Tosses Rules of Road for Internet at The Wall Street Journal.
  7. Feds Can't Enforce Net Neutrality: What This Means For You at NPR.
  8. FCC guide to The Open Internet.
  9. Does This Ruling Mean The End of the Internet? Maybe. at The Daily Beast.

Almost exactly two years ago, the Internet managed to coalesce around a goal of defeating SOPA (I wrote about it not just once, but again and again), and it worked. Now we're in the same boat and people need to speak up.

Update (1:42pm)

This graphic does a good job of capturing what might happen once net neutrality is swept away.

Image showing the base price of a fake company's DSL connection, with add-on pricing for access to groups of web sites, such as streaming sites, news sites, shopping sites, etc.
Found this on the Twitters in @CypherTheDane's tweet.

Update: January 29, 2014

I have my own opinion on the value of online petitions, but it still doesn't hurt to try. This one has gotten a lot of traffic from the go-to web pundits: Tell the FCC to protect the open internet.

at 1 comment:
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

SOPA Blackout Protests Go Forward, So Does SOPA Sponsor

Wikipedia's SOPA/PIPA protest page. Google's SOPA/PIPA protest page. Mozilla's SOPA/PIPA protest page. Reddit's SOPA/PIPA protest page. Craigslist's SOPA/PIPA protest page. Cheezburger Network's SOPA/PIPA protest page.
Some of the sites that "went dark" today to protest SOPA and PIPA.

Today is the day that a collection of popular web sites, some shown above, have "blacked out" in protest of both SOPA and PIPA. The general public knows very little of these bills, and with only minor media coverage over the last few days (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox appear on the list of SOPA supporters, as reported by Media Matters) many feel this is the only way the general public will be made aware.

But has this changed anything?

Contrary to the shouts of victory over SOPA across the web (and even some mainstream news outlets when it looked like it was a sure thing and they could report on it without upsetting owners), the bill's sponsor isn't giving up. I am absolutely one to say "I told you so," because I did on Monday.

Rep. Lamar Smith released a statement on his site yesterday to say that markup hearings would resume in February:

To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America's intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy.

Due to the Republican and Democratic retreats taking place over the next two weeks, markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February.

I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to send a bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs and protects intellectual property.

In response to the scheduled outage of Wikipedia today to protest SOPA, Rep. Smith yesterday afternoon made it clear that he isn't impressed:

It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act. The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites. This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts. Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy.

You may recall my post from last week where I feel Rep. Smith is ignoring evidence, so I am suspect (understatement) of his assertion that today's web site blackouts are nothing more than misinformation and publicity stunts.

PIPA isn't left floundering, either. On January 24 the U.S. Senate votes on it.

Related

A Flash-embedded video from Media Matters, "MSNBC's Hayes Addresses Lack Of SOPA Coverage By Major News Networks:"

Updates

From the LA Times (January 18, 2012, 1:19 pm EST):

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) withdrew as a co-sponsor of the Protect IP Act in the Senate, while Reps. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) said they were pulling their names from the companion House bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act.

Vice, which is typically a NSFW site, has a great piece showing how PIPA co-sponsor Roy Blunt, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, Florida congressman/SOPA co-sponsor Dennis Ross and Ohio senator and PIPA co-sponsor Sherrod Brown have (or had, since some of these have been scrubbed) content on their online presences that violate existing copyright laws. As the author notes, there will probably be more (remember that SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith was already caught violating copyright laws last week):

There's many many many more (from almost every single PIPA co-sponsor's site, in fact), but without actually getting written confirmation from the copyright owners in question, I'm unable to post anything here.

CNN reported another senator pulled his support:

"We can find a solution that will protect lawful content. But this bill is flawed & that's why I'm withdrawing my support. #SOPA #PIPA," Republican Sen. Roy Blunt wrote on his official Twitter page.

The NY Times says even more are opposed, though it doesn't indicate just how many of them flipped their position from supporting PIPA or SOPA:

Then trickle turned to flood — adding Senators Mark Kirk of Illinois and Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Representatives Lee Terry of Nebraska and Ben Quayle of Arizona. At least 10 senators and nearly twice that many House members announced their opposition.

Creative America, made of entertainment industry unions and studios, posted a video on Vimeo last month to argue that SOPA and PIPA protect American jobs and intellectual property. The comments on the Vimeo page suggest the web might be the wrong audience.

The Communications Director for Senator Harry Reid tweeted this morning (Friday, January 20) that the PIPA vote has been postponed:

Senator Reid, in statement this morning: "In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday's vote on the PROTECT IP Act."

We should keep in mind that postponing is different than canceling it, and the very next tweet suggests it will be back soon:

Reid: "Amercns rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for their work. I'm optimistic that we can reach compromise on PIPA in coming wks"

This afternoon (still Friday, January 20) Rep. Smiths' office released a statement that I can only presume is about SOPA (since Smith is SOPA's sponsor) despite the confusing title referencing PIPA (Statement from Chairman Smith on Senate Delay of Vote on PROTECT IP Act):

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today issued the following statement in response to the Senate decision to postpone consideration of legislation to help combat online piracy.

[…]

The House Judiciary Committee will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution.

Again, the use of pronouns and indefinite articles confuses me, since the statement nowhere explicitly says that he is sitting on SOPA. Other media outlets are content to state that Smith has pulled SOPA.

Either way, both SOPA and PIPA are postponed. Which I take to mean it's only temporary and once the furor dies down you can expect to see these again, perhaps under different names.

at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, January 16, 2012

Don't Think SOPA or PIPA Are Dead Yet


Image brazenly stolen from Virtual Shackles where it was posted with more commentary. I could be in violation of SOPA and PIPA by using this image. This image was also referenced in the petition against SOPA.

Last week I wrote a post titled "SOPA Sponsor Ignoring the Evidence." In it I attempt to dismantle the argument that the sponsor of the SOPA bill uses to ignore those who disagree with the bill. I suggest you read it for more background and context before I dive in below.

If you've been following the SOPA and PIPA trends on the web, then you probably saw the horribly mis-titled Mashable post, Victory for SOPA Opponents: DNS Blocking Struck From Bill, a couple days ago. Not victory by any means, but Rep. Lamar Smith revisiting the bill he sponsored was certainly a good sign.

PIPA had a similar falter a couple days before that, when Sen. Patrick Leahy suggested the bill needs more study before it is put to a vote. This news was covered in the more appropriately titled Author of Controversial Piracy Bill Now Says 'More Study' Needed from the Wall Street Journal.

On Saturday the White House weighed in on two petitions that have been circulating asking for the President to veto these two bills ("VETO the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information" and "Stop the E-PARASITE Act"). I suggest you ignore the hype from the media and tech outlets and read the full response, "Obama Administration Responds to We the People Petitions on SOPA and Online Piracy."

The response was jointly penned by Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff and uses some great-sounding language (emphasis theirs):

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.

[…]

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security.

But read on to see that the White House is not only not explicitly stating that these two proposed laws be dropped, but is still calling for legislation by the end of the year:

That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response. We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values.

The next statement suggests that instead of fighting SOPA and PIPA, the burden is on us as citizens to brainstorm better ways to address online piracy:

So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don't limit your opinion to what's the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what's right. Already, many members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue.

Offloading this to all U.S. citizens makes it easy for the administration to come back in a year (depending who is in office and his/her leaning) and claim that in the absence of any useful feedback from citizens, both PIPA and SOPA are on the table again as options. At the risk of becoming political, the current administration already signed a bill it had previously threatened to veto because of arguments that law violates the Bill of Rights. He agreed to sign the law simply because a provision was added giving his office the power to choose who is impacted.

Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior. It is conceivable that a similar threat against SOPA and PIPA, or in this case a non-threat, will be pushed aside when the administration feels it can be pushed through with much less of a fight.

About the same time on Saturday word came down from House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa, who was opposed to SOPA, that SOPA was being shelved for now due to lack of consensus. He could not make the same guarantee about PIPA but could at least weigh in on it:

While I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act, I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House. Majority Leader Cantor has assured me that we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus prior to any anti-piracy legislation coming before the House for a vote.

Even if PIPA's sponsor backs away from the bill altogether and it is also shelved, the language is clear from both houses of Congress and from the White House that this isn't the last attempt at legislation we'll see applied to the internet. It behooves us as citizens to pay attention to the next iteration of these bills and challenge them.

Related

Video

at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, January 9, 2012

SOPA Sponsor Ignoring the Evidence

Pls RT: @senatorreid @chuckschumer @mcconnellpress We need u to stand w the Internet and kill #PIPA http://act.demandprogress.org/act/pipa_tweet/?referring_akid=.194196.pE4I30&source=typ-tw via @demandprogress

I tend to avoid addressing politics here or on my Twitter stream, but I think this topic is beyond politics and more about a fundamental lack of understanding of the internet as a whole.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA or H.R. 3261 in the U.S. House of Representatives) and its Senate analogue PIPA (PROTECT IP Act) have been drawing the ire of the internet community for quite a while now. Online efforts to sink the laws have been targeted primarily at SOPA. However, somehow SOPA has been mostly ignored by traditional media outlets, possibly owing to their ownership.

The bill is intended to stop both counterfeit drugs from being sold online and to prevent copyright infringement. The methods described in the bill to accomplish these goals have been repeatedly derided by nearly everybody who has a hand in the internet or a concern over censorship.

What doesn't help is that the bill's sponsor, Lamar Smith, seems to be completely disconnected from the internet as evidenced by Smith's statements on January 2:

The criticism of this bill is completely hypothetical; none of it is based in reality. Not one of the critics was able to point to any language in the bill that would in any way harm the Internet. Their accusations are simply not supported by any facts.
It's a vocal minority. Because they're strident doesn't mean they're either legitimate or large in number. One, they need to read the language. Show me the language. There's nothing they can point to that does what they say it does do. I think their fears are unfounded.

The vocal minority he cites was small enough to not only push GoDaddy to distance itself from the bill, but to ultimately release a statement saying GoDaddy officially opposes SOPA. Reddit helped motivate Congressman Paul Ryan to clarify his stance on SOPA, and Ryan today released a statement opposing SOPA:

I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse.

Both Al Gore, the self-professed inventor of the internet, and Tim Berners-Lee, the guy who is credited with inventing the web, have each come out against SOPA and PIPA. In November, Google, Facebook, Mozilla, Zynga, eBay, Twitter, Yahoo, LinkedIn, and AOL all got together for a full page ad in the New York Times to oppose PIPA and SOPA the same day as a SOPA hearing with witnesses slanted in favor of the bill.

Lamar Smith also says there are no "legitimate" concerns that this would harm the internet, nor are there any facts to back them up. Smith needs to only look at the extensive lists compiled across the web on how SOPA is both a technical disaster and an open door for censorship:

Smith also asks for people to point to language in the bill that justifies these concerns. Since the bill is available online, it seems pretty straightforward — except the bill is so vague in parts that it's easier to just point out those sections that lack clarity and leave the door open to lawsuits and poor interpretation by technically uneducated judges.

I am not a trained legal professional, but these passages in particular cause me concern given how vaguely they are worded and how easily they can be misinterpreted.

Sec. 102 c.2.A
A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site.

Sec. 102 c.2.B
A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link.

Sec. 102 c.4.A
Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief

Sec. 102 c.4.A.i
against any entity served under paragraph (1) that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection to compel such entity to comply with such requirements; or

Sec. 102 c.4.A.ii
against any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) [...]

Sec. 107 b
The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator shall, not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report that includes the folowing:

Sec. 107 b.4
An analysis of the adequacy of relying upon foreign governments to pursue legal action against notorious foreign infringers.

Now spend a few minutes familiarizing yourself with who co-sponsors SOPA then compare it to the top 20 congressman (ranked by dollar amount) who receive money from lobbying groups in the TV, movies and music sectors.

While you're looking, spend some time to review the list of co-sponsors for PIPA and compare it to the top 20 senators (ranked by dollar amount) who receive money from lobbying groups in the TV, movies and music sectors. Local readers will see Senator Kirsten Gillibrand tops the list.

For more information:

  1. A one page SOPA reference (in PDF form) from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
  2. 110 law professors write an open letter to Congress (also in PDF) explaining why SOPA is a bad idea.

Links to things you can do:

  1. Hate SOPA? 6 things you can do to stop it
  2. Stop American Censorship
  3. Act Now : This Bill Seriously Screws with the Internet
at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)