I would think a part of optimizing any sort of cloud-based, widespread accessibility framework would involve discerning which users were using it so as to not send a lot of unnecessary accessibility-related data back and forth with users who aren't utilizing it. As more and more software goes into the cloud, it seems reasonable to assume that accessibility features of those cloud-based applications might be enabled or disabled on a per user level, and a user could seemingly be asociated to whatever accessibility features they have chosen to enable. As the software goes into the cloud, some of the accessibility will need to as well. It won't always be sufficient to have local access solutions for dynamically changing applications on a web platform, although most access solutions today are based locally.
Just clarifying what I think the issue might be, personally I at this juncture am simply willing to put my paranoia aside in favor of the increased flexibility and potential of the cloud computing model. I want privacy to be protected, but I'd rather not see technology stagnate on account of it.
Jared On 3/27/2010 4:29 PM, Sina Bahram wrote:
How are they easy to identify? I'm not sure why you are blanketly accepting this premis? How would you identify someone is using a screen reader or any other assistive technology if they are connecting via a web service, SSH, private protocol, or whatever. Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of qubit Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 4:17 PM To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online Interesting argument. My only question is, would I have access to my own data on the server? Anyway, I agree privacy applies to everyone equally and not just persons with disabilities, but I think one difference is that the disabled persons accessing the server are easy to identify, and therefore there is an inherent privacy issue for them in particular. I don't know if this is why the statement appears in the GAS. Perhaps Chris can answer. --le ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sina Bahram"<sbahram@xxxxxxxxx> To:<programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 2:28 PM Subject: RE: GNU Accessibility Statement Online With all due respect, I don't believe anyone deserves or needs privacy more so or less than someone else. Privacy should be an inalienable right given to all individuals or none. So, I respectfully disagree that folks with disabilities are any different than those without disabilities, or certain ethnicity groups, and so forth. With respect to your seemingly circular argument that cloud computing somehow is more or less secure than self computing. I do not accept this as a reason nor as a valid excuse. It seems that your primary argument against cloud computing revolves around the decentralization of information from one's own ownership. In other words, you claim that because my data resides in Boston, New York, or Beijing, it is somehow less secure than if it is on a computer system I own. If you like, I can actually point you to several academic papers which have shown quite effective double blind security measures; for example, using something like pgp for communication layer, AES for data protection, anonymizers for privacy protection, and things such as the onion router for protection against tracing you down via TCP/IP access patterns. So I believe if appropriate measures are taken, it can actually be far better with respect to privacy concerns that one's data is not on computers that one owns. That way, it is not tied to a physical object that can be linked to you. To this end, I posit that keeping the data on your own computer can be just as, if not more so, harmful to privacy, and I disagree with the free software foundation's inaccurate advice to keep data in one easy to surveil, easy to capture, and easy to associate place. The techniques you suggest and advocate for can actually harm privacy related concerns, not advance them. All of this having been said, why are we mentioning it in an accessibility statement? Why? Just talk about accessibility, not about privacy. Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Hofstader Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:23 PM To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online Hi, I don't disagree and wanted the statement removed but it is a GNU statement and must, therefore, it needs to reflect the fundamentals of FSF. Also, people with disabilities need privacy more so than others as everything from insurance premiums to potential lawsuits may cause problems when and if someone gets access to their information. Remember, a person with disability will cost more to insure so companies may be reluctant to hire them for that reason alone. If asked about this statement, though, we can point to Bill Gates who, in a COMDEX keynote address a bunch of years ago, he made a strong statement against server based programs, citing a value of putting computes in the hands of the individual and also raising privacy concerns. Also, there are people in jail in China because Yahoo turned over records stored on their servers. Why not expect that the US security infrastructure would be following all transactions on Skype, MSN, etc. giving them a lot of information into which they can cast a wide net. There's a lot of problems with server based systems ranging from privacy to a centralized data bank that can be mined for all sorts of reasons. Lastly, there is the question of who controls your computing and your data. Local systems put you in charge while who knows what google might do with or to your information. Of course, I could be wrong. cdh On Mar 27, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Sina Bahram wrote:The following statement really got to me: "and please don't invite users to do something on a server that they could conceivably do on their own computers." I understand that Stallmann is one of the leading activists against cloud computing, but why on earth are you allowing such an agenda to creap into a statement on accessibility? In my opinion, this one statement completely undermines the rest of the things you're trying to do. Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Hofstader Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 9:00 AM To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: GNU Accessibility Statement Online Hi, For a couple of months, Richard Stallman and I have been working on the GNU Accessibility Statement (GAS) which takes a no nonsense approach to endorsing the rights of people with disabilities as regard software within the context of free software. I've neverread a more strongly worded statement from any organization regarding software and people with disabilities.GAS also takes a strong stance on free software values but does not endorse any specific license, although we would like people to use GPL. You can read the statement at: http://www.gnu.org/accessibility/accessibility.html and send comments to me that we can consider for future revisions of the statement. Thanks, cdh __________ View the list's information and change your settings at http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind __________ View the list's information and change your settings at http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind__________ View the list's information and change your settings at http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind __________ View the list's information and change your settings at http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind __________ View the list's information and change your settings at http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind __________ View the list's information and change your settings at http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
__________View the list's information and change your settings at http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind