From steve at advocate.net Sat Jun 1 09:24:27 2002 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 09:24:27 -0700 Subject: SCN: Filters Message-ID: <3CF892CB.6446.76BD6AB@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ===================== (John Schwartz, NY Times)---A federal court panel struck down a law requiring libraries to filter the Internet for material harmful to minors yesterday, saying that the technology blocks so much unobjectionable material that it would violate the First Amendment rights of library patrons. In a powerfully worded but sometimes wistful opinion, Chief Judge Edward R. Becker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, wrote that the three-judge panel hearing the case was "sympathetic" to the government's goal of using technology to protect children from the worst of the Internet. But, he wrote in the 195-page opinion, "Ultimately this outcome, devoutly to be wished, is not available in this less than best of all possible worlds." Advocates of civil liberties were jubilant. "I am ecstatic," said Judith F. Krug, director of the American Library Association's office for intellectual freedom, which opposed the filtering requirement. "We couldn't have wanted anything better." If the government chooses to appeal, the case will go to the Supreme Court. A Justice Department spokeswoman said the department was disappointed by the decision and was reviewing whether to appeal it. The law at issue, the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2001, was Congress's third effort since 1996 to shield children from pornography carried over the Internet. As with the two earlier versions, this one ran afoul of constitutional protections. The act required schools and libraries to install a "technology protection measure," like Internet filters, to prevent access to child pornography and materials considered obscene or "harmful to minors." Libraries and schools that did not comply would lose federal subsidies for financing Internet access. The public libraries of Multnomah County, Ore., banded together with the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, a variety of Web sites and library patrons to challenge the bill in federal court. The law included provisions for a special three-judge panel to hear any legal challenges to it. Along with Chief Judge Becker, Judges John P. Fullam and Harvey Bartle III of Federal District Court served on the panel. Judge Becker was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Bartle was appointed by President George H. W. Bush, and Judge Fullam was appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The decision comes a month before a Congressionally imposed deadline for libraries to install filters or lose the federal Internet financing. The appellate court's decision addressed only the provisions of the law affecting libraries; schools are still subject to the law's provisions. The libraries and other plaintiffs presented numerous examples of legitimate sites that had been erroneously blocked by the four most popular filtering programs. The three-judge panel mentioned many of those blocking errors in its opinion, including sites covering topics in education, medicine, politics and religion. Other sites the filters blocked, the panel noted, included the Knights of Columbus Council 4828 in Fallon, Nev.; a site for Tenzin Palmo, a Buddhist nun; a site that promotes federalism in Uganda; and the Lesbian and Gay Havurah of the Jewish Community Center of Long Beach, Calif. The panel called filters "blunt instruments" because of their propensity to overblock legitimate sites and underblock objectionable sites. "We find that it is currently impossible, given the Internet's size, rate of growth, rate of change and architecture, and given the state of the art of automated classification systems, to develop a filter that neither underblocks nor overblocks a substantial amount of speech," the opinion stated. The panel said that libraries could use less restrictive alternatives to filters, like setting policies on what users could view on the Internet, or offering parents filters for when their children use computers. Libraries could also keep children from seeing objectionable material on another patron's computer by having screens positioned to be visible only from the user's vantage point, the court said. The government had argued that the filtering software was effective enough to block most of the objectionable material, and that the law did not require a perfect performance. Government lawyers also contended that libraries restrict all manner of materials in the normal course of buying books. But the court ruled that mandating filters in a public forum like a library subjects the restrictions to a high degree of scrutiny under the First Amendment — far more than that which should apply to a library's budget-based purchasing decisions. "The court has barred the law from turning librarians into thought police armed with clumsy filters," said Ann Beeson, litigation director of the A.C.L.U.'s technology and liberty program. David Burt, a spokesman for N2H2 Inc., a filtering company based in Seattle, and a consultant to Congress when it drafted the law, said that the thousands of blocked sites the court alluded to constituted a tiny fraction of the world's Web sites. "We consider a 99-plus percent accuracy rate to be something to be proud of," he said. Amitai Etzioni, a political scientist at George Washington University, said, "I'm saddened about it," since in his opinion it meant that children would receive no protection. "There are costs on both sides," he said. Should the government appeal, the Supreme Court has generally taken a strong First Amendment position when it comes to the Internet; in recent years the justices have overturned laws intended to restrict adult materials online. In April, they rejected a law banning "virtual" child pornography. In a May 13 opinion, though, the court rejected another Third Circuit panel's reasoning in striking down an earlier Internet pornography law, the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, finding that the lower court had not undertaken a sufficiently thorough analysis of that law. Mr. Burt of N2H2 regarded that a sign that the Supreme Court might show more tolerance for any flaws filtering software might contain. "I think the Supreme Court is going to say the same thing - 'You've gone too far again,' " he said. Then he paused, and added, "But then, I thought they were going to uphold the virtual child pornography law, too." Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jj at scn.org Tue Jun 4 00:36:08 2002 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 00:36:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Spam page? Message-ID: Anyone out there want to put together a web page explaining why we block sites that send us spam, and how to get a site unblocked? === JJ ============================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From emailer1 at netzero.net Tue Jun 4 01:29:24 2002 From: emailer1 at netzero.net (emailer1) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 01:29:24 -0700 Subject: SCN: Fw: Mountaineering Message-ID: <005501c20ba2$aa029a60$7152fea9@desktop> ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 2:36 PM Subject: RE: Mountaineering This is a excerpt from a mountaineering friend about climbing. Succinct and direct. ======================= "As Clint Eastwood said in one of his movies, "A man's got to know his limitations." And of course, the mountain always wins so if we want to return another day to visit a special place in the mountains, a constant evaluation of risks v. rewards based on current information needs to be part of our journey." You'll notice the climbers who died on Rainier made mistakes: a.. climbing a route that has no possible descent alternatives; b.. climbing this very difficult route with a weather forecast that called for "deteriorating weather conditions"; c.. choosing this as their first ever route up Rainier; d.. and their navigation device (a GPS) froze so they couldn't find the Emmons Glacier which they could have descended even in darkness if necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From douglas Wed Jun 5 11:08:39 2002 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Call for Proposals -- Community Information Systems Message-ID: <200206051808.LAA15195@scn.org> Call for Proposals -- Community Information Systems To: community, civic, and educational groups From: Randy Groves and Doug Schuler, The Evergreen State College ----------------- Please forward as appropriate ----------------- Hello! We think we have an exciting proposition and we're hoping that you think so too. Please take a minute to read this note and see if you may want to participate. We think it's a great opportunity to think creatively -- and to have fun -- and, hopefully, be left with an application, service, or web site that is useful to you. And ultimately we all hope to have some influence on how information and communication technology is used in society. As some of you know, Randy Groves (randy at scn.org) and I (douglas at trout.cpsr.org) are teaching at The Evergreen State College (www.evergreen.edu), a non-traditional liberal arts college in Olympia, Washington (US) 70 miles south of Seattle. Starting in late September, 2002 we will be teaching a 3 quarter (approx. 9 month) program entitled "Community Information Systems" to about 50 students. In this program, teams of 3 to 5 students will work together with a community to develop a web based application that is useful to that community. Some of these communities will be in the Pacific Northwest region while others will be in Europe, Africa, Asia, or other places. The students will be learning about how to develop web-based applications (using public domain tools and languages: HTML, PHP, and MySQL) while also helping to plan "campaigns" that are related to the community's needs. We're planning to work with 8 - 15 communities. We hope that this arrangement will be beneficial to everybody -- we want both the student teams at Evergreen and the communities whom they're working with to give and to receive some service or good, so everybody gains from the experience. Our immediate need is to begin discussing possibilities with people. We plan to spend the next several months identifying strong candidates to present to the students in late September. In mid October our students will select 8 - 15 communities to work with. Please fill out our online proposal form (http://www.scn.org/edu/tesc-ds/2002-2003/misc/partners-survey.html) if you think there is even the remotest possibility that you'd like to get involved. We would like to see your completed proposal by August 15, 2002. Thanks! If you have any questions or comments please let us know. We'd love to discuss this with you! Thank you!!! Randy Groves, grovesr at evergreen.edu Doug Schuler, douglas at trout.cpsr.org PS. Please feel free to forward this to anybody whom you think might be interested. PPS. Please contact us directly if you have any questions about the online proposal system or any other aspects of the project. PPPS. Much of last session's (2000-2001) can be found at http://www.scn.org/edu/tesc-ds/2000-2001/fall/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From nc__OPPORTUNITIES at lycos.com Thu Jun 6 10:12:12 2002 From: nc__OPPORTUNITIES at lycos.com (qjk__BUILT FOR SUCCESS) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:12:12 -0700 Subject: SCN: GREAT OPPORTUNITY.......... odrim Message-ID: <200206061511.IAA20180@scn4.scn.org> Untitled Document

Stock Opportunity Undervalued

Alerting Smart Investors to Overlooked & Undervalued Stocks

.........................

FEATURED COMPANY

GoHealth MD, Inc. (OTCBB.GOMD)

Operators of World-Leading Health Websites

 

Common Shares Outstanding (est.): 11.03M
52 week High.....$.47
Current Price..... $.16

 

Stock Analysis

Stock Opportunity Undervalued has rated GOMD a Strong Buy for the following reasons:

*Large visitor database
*Successful news publication The Daily Alternative
*Successful news publication Chiropractic Clinical Update
*Strong Management team with a successful track record
*New Board of Directors dedicated to reducing debt and liabilities and increasing shareholder value


Investment Highlights

*Web Influenced Healthcare spending will soar to $61 Billion by 2006 (Jupiter Research, Feb 2002)
*Proven Revenue Model utilizing on-line and off-line advertising model through content-rich healthcare publications with a wide current distribution
*Nearly 100 Million Americans use the internet for health information each month (Harris Interactive, April 2001)
*Established brand and user base
*Leveraging its strong brand and extensive customer database, the company is aggressively pursuing synergistic and diversified acquisitions


About the Company

The principal business is operating an internet-based consumer healthcare network consisting of a consumer-focused interactive website. The Company derives revenues from advertising through its various on-line and off-line publications, Healthmall, the Daily Alternative, and Chiropractic Clinical Update.

The Company has had a non-exclusive agreement with Vita labs and the Pharmor Corporation to use Healthmall as a source for consumer healthcare content on its web site, www.pharmor.com.

In November 1999, the company changed the principal focus of the business strategy from registration and marketing of .MD domain names to operating healthcare websites. The principal business is operating Healthmall.com, an Internet-based consumer healthcare network consisting of a consumer-focused interactive website and affiliate relationships with certain other websites. The Company derives revenues by providing advertising on their websites and through affiliations with other entities.

Previously, the Company had established network affiliates, the first affiliate relation was with Pharmor Corporation. The Company had a nonexclusive agreement with Pharmor Corporation to use Healthmall as a source for consumer healthcare content on its web site, www.pharmor.com. The second relationship was with Dr. James Corea doing business as James Corea's Vitalabs.

 

Sources of Revenue

GoHealth MD Inc. has two successful news publications, The Daily Alternative and Chiropractic Clinical Update. GoHealth MD Inc. also has hundreds of thousands of categorize names and e-mail addresses of consumers, doctors, and medical professionals who are daily visitors to the HealthMall website. Combining these assets with an electronic advertising and marketing campaign, online order placement, and product fulfillment make for a very attractive projected revenue forecast.

 

Why Advertise on Healthmall.com?


When you advertise on Healthmall your company will benefit by getting its message directly to vast numbers of health conscious consumers, including doctors, medical professionals. Healthmall.com has recently launched two new products, it’s Health Assessment which allows visitors to determine their overall health, as well as projected life expectancy, and it’s Body-Mass Index Calculator which will allow visitors to determine if they are overweight

 

Internet Resources

Imagineyou - Online Resource of Cosmetic Surgeons

Genelink - Private DNA Banking System

Eldersearch - Online Resource of Senior Care Options

Health Solution - We offer vitamins, herbs, nutritionals, skin care, weight loss, muscle building products.We also offer affilliate program for added incentive and added savings.

 

 

..........................

 

ACA, Inc. (ACA)) publishes reports providing information on selected companies that ACA believes has investment potential. Subscriptions are $290.00 per year to receive ACA reports. ACA is not a registered investment advisor or broker-dealer. This report is provided as an information service only, and the statements and opinions in this report should not be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security. ACA accepts no liability for any loss arising from an investor's reliance on or use of this report. An investment in GOMD is considered to be highly speculative and should not be considered unless a person can afford a complete loss of investment. ACA has been hired by a non-affiliated, third party consultant, and has received three hundred eighty-five thousand shares of common stock for the publication and circulation of this report. ACA has purchased twenty five thousand shares in the open market and has paid between .15 and .20 per share. ACA may buy or sell shares of GOMD stock in the open market without notice and intends to sell partial or all of its holdings at the time of the distribution of this report. This report contains forward-looking statements, which involve risks, and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. For further details concerning these risks and uncertainties, see the SEC filings of GOMD including the company's most recent annual and quarterly reports. Copyright 2002 by ACA. All rights reserved.

 

ACA, Inc. is an independent newsletter and is not affiliated with HealthMall.

 

I no longer wish to receive your newsletter CLICK HERE
wvvwyxaixabxdfahneqmofnborvocpyk * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bk705 at scn.org Thu Jun 6 15:19:27 2002 From: bk705 at scn.org (SCN User) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 15:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: Barbara Weismman/Computer Technical Difficulties Message-ID: Dear Scn. Technical Staff: Ms. Weismann is a friend of mine who suggested I contact you directly for assistance in determining if I might either barter or request direct service with my computer, as a recent attempt to use it has created a freeze up. What exactly has occured is that the DOS is running, and that I am told my computer wans't shut down properly. When I do this again, and theDOS runs, the icon for Windows appears, and then the statement that there is not enough memory in C drive for me to attempt to even get into my computer. The next window which appears is the statement that I should shut down one of my programs and there is a problem with Internet exe. I can do absolutely nothing. I recently purchased an Epson printer and installed that with a disc. It worked fine the first day and no difficulties as stated above. I did shut down the machine in a hurry that night, and the next morning the freeze up started withthe above images I mentioned. Will you please tell me if I may have direct service in person from someone for this. If there is a woman technical staff person who might be able to direct me with this in person, I would feel more comfortable with that. Your time and knowledge is greatly appreciated. Most Sincerely, Brenda Kay Neth bk705 at scn.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Fri Jun 7 07:38:33 2002 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 07:38:33 -0700 Subject: SCN: Privacy Message-ID: <3D0062F9.22952.1B59897@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ======================= (Lisa M. Bowman, ZDNet News)---From the Bill Gates e-mails unveiled during the Microsoft trial to the Enron debacle, the digital trails people leave have provided stunning insight into their beliefs and habits. Now the FBI is hoping to capture and corral more of our digital detritus in the name of fighting terrorism. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday will examine proposed Justice Department guidelines that would give federal investigators new license to mine publicly available databases and monitor Web use. The changes, which come after a major FBI shakeup last week, have sparked intense debate over the merits of expanding government surveillance powers as the country faces ongoing threats of terrorist attacks. Backers paint the reforms as a long overdue end to restrictions that have hobbled investigators and denied them access to research tools that are available to anyone with an Internet connection. Intelligence failures in the FBI and CIA have come under the spotlight amid new questions about who knew what in advance of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings, which left more than 3,000 people dead. But civil liberties advocates warn that last week's proposal is the latest step along a worrying path back to the 1950s and '60s--days when investigators compiled dossiers on innocent American citizens based on their religious and political practices. "I hate to be in a position of telling people 'don't go online and speak' or 'watch what you say,' but you have to take from this that on an arbitrary basis, the FBI is going to be tagging people as terrorists based on what they say online," said Jim Dempsey, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Since Sept. 11, Congress has enacted legislation that greatly expands law enforcement's ability to monitor communications through the so-called Patriot Act. America's allies have also sought to bolster laws aimed at aiding investigators, with the European Parliament last week approving guidelines that would force Internet companies to preserve data about their sites for possible future investigations. Last week's FBI guidelines from Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller would allow field agents to gather information outside of criminal investigations, relaxing regulations set in the 1970s. Those rules, named after then-Attorney General Edward Levi, barred the FBI from attending political meetings unless it had a reasonable suspicion that a crime was being planned. The new rules, by contrast, would authorize field agents to attend public meetings freely and request warrants with less interference from the main office. In addition, the rules would allow the FBI to monitor public Internet sites, libraries and religious institutions. Agency supporters say lifting of monitoring restrictions opens the gate to investigation tools that have been unaccountably denied to the FBI until now. In an opinion piece published this week in The Wall Street Journal, L. Gordon Crovitz, Dow Jones' senior vice president of electronic publishing, said his eyes were recently opened to undue restraints on the FBI during the investigation into the death of Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan this year. In following the case, employees of the paper found that the FBI was restrained from keeping information as rudimentary as news clips, he wrote. Employees, he said, were "surprised to learn that the FBI's extraordinarily professional, highly trained agents were not given access to the kinds of online research services now common on the desks of cub reporters or junior salespeople." Privacy advocates, however, say the Net monitoring rule creates greater possibilities than ever before for abuses because technology makes it easier to whittle down people's habits and divide them into patterns that may or may not point to terrorism. The result, they say, could be a crackdown on political dissidents and people who visit anti-American chat rooms. For years, some people have worried that marketers would profile them in some potentially malevolent way by tracking their Web use. The FBI's involvement potentially raises the stakes. Technology ranging from data mining to surveillance cameras can be tied together to form an easily searchable database of people's religious, political and personal preferences. This enables the FBI, based on a hunch, to investigate--and possibly jail--people. Law enforcement for the most part has always been able to get information through a third party, such as a database company or an Internet service provider, via methods including subpoenas. However, the relaxed guidelines would let the FBI conduct investigations in publicly available nooks of the Web even if they aren't looking at a specific suspect or crime. "Such an approach to police authority in the United States is directly contrary to the First and Fourth Amendment and the system of checks and balances established by our form of government," a group of organizations including the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Arab American Institute wrote in a letter this week to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "We are also concerned that the changes authorize unchecked surveillance of lawful religious and political activity, and that such surveillance will be targeted against Arab-Americans, Muslims and immigrants among others," the letter said. Others say the new surveillance culture is the price we have to pay to be safe in a post-Sept. 11 world. "The first business of government is to protect its citizens from the kind of threats we saw on Sept. 11," said Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute. "Nothing in these new guidelines in any way is in violation of constitutional protections. There's nothing illegal about compiling a dossier." Pilon compares the FBI's plan for more patrolling of public Web spaces to a beat cop walking the neighborhood. "It has been objected that this will allow agents to monitor perfectly legal behavior--that's true," he said. "The cop working the beat observes legal behavior. The reason for walking the beat is to engage in a more proactive effort to prevent crime." Meanwhile, those who compile databases are grappling with the plan, wondering if they're going to be forced into the role of skippers on new FBI fishing expeditions. Jerry Cerasale, senior vice president of government affairs for the Direct Marketing Association, said his group is still crafting a response to the FBI proposal. "Our guidelines say marketing data can be used for marketing purposes only," he said. "This is a new twist." Cerasale said his members have long had to balance law enforcement needs with privacy rights, but until now, the process has involved a subpoena. "You don't just give out an address to law enforcement officials, although the FBI would like that to happen," he said. Furthermore, previous attempts to tie databases to crime have often failed, underscoring the risks of relying on technology as a cop. For example, Cerasale said that despite protests from his group, the IRS eventually got its hands on the list of subscribers to Car and Driver Magazine, hoping to catch tax cheats by scouring groups of people interested in expensive cars. However, the search led to little more than a few teenage car fans who hadn't filed taxes, Cerasale said. The incident is cited as one more example of the limitations of technology. And the list of failed searches for a silver cyberbullet grows longer by the day. Some airports, for example, have removed face-recognition technology after it failed to identify people more than half the time. What's more, law enforcement's reliance on technology has actually tripped up some investigations. According to internal FBI documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Council, a privacy watchdog, glitches in the Carnivore snooping system-- namely, the over-collection of information on innocent individuals-- led to the destruction of e-mails from a subject with ties to Osama bin Laden. But all the hand-wringing over information gathering may be for naught if cops can't connect the dots on the data they do collect. A series of revelations in recent weeks has shown that the FBI and CIA had gathered data hinting or warning of the Sept. 11 attacks but failed to coordinate and respond to the information. In one case, investigators overlooked a memo from a Phoenix field office warning that potential terrorists were enrolling in flight schools. In another case, a Minneapolis agent told FBI Director Mueller that bureaucratic bungles thwarted her investigation into the so-called 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. "I think the lesson of the last month or so--the revelations of the government's handling of the bits of information it had--is that there was not a failure at the information-gathering level," said Lee Tien, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "There was a failure of information going to the right place." The problem is so severe that the Senate and House intelligence committees are beginning an in-depth series of meeting into the matter this week. That's not to say that technology can't play an important part in nabbing suspected terrorists. Police have caught rapists and murderers by retracing digital footprints as mundane as a subway card reader. FBI agents have used the Web to snare child pornographers and drug dealers. And on Tuesday, FBI Director Mueller gave another nod to the tech world, announcing the appointment of longtime IBM executive Wilson Lowery as his special assistant to oversee the agency's restructuring. "He combines the precision and insight of a chief financial officer with the vision and leadership of an executive comfortable with change, technology and global issues, " Mueller said in a statement about Lowery. But the focus on technology still doesn't solve the basic problems, says the EFF's Tien. "The continual question of 'can't we do more with technology?' I think really misses the point," Tien said. "The weakest link in our intelligence is a lack of understanding of what's going on, on the ground. There is no quick fix." Copyright 2002 CNET Networks Inc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Sat Jun 8 09:59:15 2002 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 09:59:15 -0700 Subject: SCN: Broadband Message-ID: <3D01D573.12534.75CFC92@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ===================== (Jeffrey Benner, Salon)---The Federal Communications Commission is quietly handing over control of the broadband Internet to a handful of massive corporations. In March, the FCC ruled that cable companies do not have to open their networks to competing Internet service providers, or ISPs. A FCC proposal to extend the same exemption to DSL service is pending. If approved, the proposal will allow local phone companies, now down to four "Baby Bells," to deny other DSL providers access to local phone networks. Currently, all DSL providers are guaranteed access to phone networks under the FCC's interpretation of federal telecommunications law. Telecommunications, cable, and media companies (increasingly one and the same) and their allies in Congress have campaigned for years to deregulate most aspects of the telecom industry. Under the current administration, and the leadership of FCC chairman Michael Powell, those efforts have finally begun to pay off. The trend profoundly concerns consumer advocates and some Internet policy experts. They warn that if the FCC goes through with its plans, cable companies and the Baby Bells will quickly establish a monopoly on broadband service over their own networks. Consumers accustomed to thousands of competing ISPs to choose from for dial-up narrowband Internet access will be left with just one or two options for broadband service. One worry is that the lack of competition will yield high prices and poor service. But the far more urgent concern is that media conglomerates will use their control over broadband pipes to restrict access to content, information, or technologies that compete with their own content or otherwise threaten their interests. "The past two decades on the Internet have been a uniquely consumer-friendly environment," says Mark Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America. "Now that is up for grabs. The essential ingredient of the Internet was preventing the owner of the facilities from dictating content. Now, eight cable companies will decide what the public will be offered, not 8,000 ISPs." The CFA, along with the Media Access Project, the Center for Digital Democracy, and the Consumers Union are challenging the FCC ruling on cable broadband in federal court. Despite those dire warnings, the FCC's policy on broadband enjoys strong support. Companies with a stake in the matter are gung-ho for it, at least for their own networks, and many independent economists and public policy experts also find the FCC's deregulatory approach to broadband enlightened and long overdue. They scoff at the idea that the freewheeling Internet can be controlled by any company or group of companies. And they argue that the current regulations, particularly the open-access requirements for DSL, actually discourage private investment in new broadband infrastructure and technology. Who wants to build a new network -- whether it's DSL, satellite, or "fiber to the home" -- if you then have to share it with competitors? If the government steps aside, they say, robust competition will develop between different technology "platforms" such as cable, phone, satellite and local wireless, giving consumers plenty of choices and stimulating a build-out of broadband infrastructure at the same time. "If you have competition between platforms, consumers will be better off," says Randolph May, a communications policy expert with the Progress and Freedom Foundation. "The problem is that regulation impedes investment and new entrants to the market." Further complicating the picture is the massive consolidation in the media and telecommunications industries that has been building for years. That consolidation is expected to accelerate as the FCC throws out limits on how large and broad media companies can grow. Once those limits are gone -- some have already been eliminated -- it is quite plausible that a single media company could control the broadcast television stations, newspapers, radio and broadband Internet access in a single city. Even some conservatives worry about this concentration of power among the very companies seeking unregulated control over broadband Internet access. Kenneth Arrow, a Stanford economist who won the Nobel Prize for his free-market theories, supports the deregulation of broadband. But he also expresses concern about pushing reliance on the free market too far. "I am worried about concentration in the media," he says. "That does bother me." The heart of the anti-deregulation camp's argument is that the narrowband Internet owes its phenomenal success as an engine of innovation, creativity and economic growth to government regulations that guaranteed open competition. Current telecommunications regulations, originally written to break up the Bell telephone monopoly, require open access to phone lines for all ISPs and forbid the Baby Bells to tweak with the content flowing over their networks. If such protections are not extended to broadband service over cable, and are lifted from DSL over the phone lines, those against deregulation fear that the openness, innovation, and creativity that made the narrowband Internet revolutionary will wilt in the tight fist of corporate control. Huge media companies -- increasingly fearful of the threat posed by the Internet to their proprietary content -- will jump at the chance, they say, to lock things down. "There is a fundamental battle going on," said Larry Lessig, a Stanford law professor and an expert on Internet history and policy. "There is a strong political movement to remove all obligations to keep the network open and the Internet as we knew it." On March 13 the FCC commissioners ruled, 3-1, that cable broadband is an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications service." By toggling definitions just so, the commission cleverly managed to exempt cable broadband -- widely acknowledged as the key communications network of the future -- from all the rules that apply to telecommunications services under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The most important piece of telecom legislation in 60 years, the act, among other things, requires telecommunications companies to open up their networks to competition. This open-access requirement is the reason you can choose from among hundreds of long-distance carriers and from among thousands of ISPs for dial-up access to the Internet. Under the law, local phone companies must allow other companies to sell services over the phone lines, even if they compete with the phone company's own services or products. The Telecommunications Act also forbids network owners from meddling with content on their network. This is why narrowband users -- and thus far, DSL users -- can fax, or talk, or download music off the Internet without permission or fear of interference from the local phone company. The rules were written to prevent the owners of the telephone wires from using their power over the lines to control content or stifle competition. Over the past several years, as cable companies have begun offering services generally considered to be telecommunications -- Internet access, digital telephone service, video conferencing -- there has been an increasingly bitter battle between cable companies and consumer advocates over whether open-access requirements and other regulations that apply to telecommunications should also apply to cable. The March ruling settled the question: Telecom rules won't apply to cable broadband. The 1996 act defines "telecommunications" as simply "the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received." Consumer advocates argue this should apply to cable broadband. Although the act, and the FCC, have long referred to high-speed Internet access as "advanced telecommunications services," the FCC decided in its March ruling that cable broadband is really better described as an information service. Although technically still under FCC jurisdiction, there are no significant regulations on information services, which include services like voice mail. As a "declaratory ruling," the commission reached its decision without a hearing or public comment period. FCC commissioner Michael Copps, the lone Democrat on the four- member commission, wrote in his dissenting statement that the ruling amounted to a breach of the Constitution. "Today we take a gigantic leap down the road of removing core communications services from the statutory frameworks established by Congress," Copps wrote, "substituting our own judgment for that of Congress and playing a game of regulatory musical chairs by moving technologies and services from one statutory definition to another. Last month I remarked that we were out-driving the range of our headlights. Today I think we are out- flying the range of our most advanced radar." But the FCC is not stopping there. For years there has been clamoring from all sides that the same regulations should apply to all types of broadband access, although opinions differ on what the rules should be, or if there should be any at all. Public policy for broadband is particularly confusing, because the service is offered over cable, phone and wireless connections, and each of those sectors has traditionally had a separate set of regulations. Chairman Powell has made it plain he would like to clear up the confusion and have consistent rules. In February, the FCC proposed lifting the current open-access requirement for DSL service. No decision has been reached yet, but now that the FCC has ruled that cable companies will not have to open their networks to competition, and given Powell's enthusiasm for consistent regulations -- or lack of them -- it seems a safe bet the FCC will let the Baby Bells shut out their competitors, too. The logic is essentially that one monopoly deserves another. The prospect of broadband provision reduced to a few competitors, each with a monopoly on their own platform, scares the hell out of consumer groups that have fought the creation of corporate monopolies over media and information sources for years. Because media conglomerates such as AOL have begun buying up the pipes that deliver the content they produce, the situation seems even more ominous. In short, consumer advocates worry these companies will mess with content in order to force the Internet to serve their own interests. They argue, for example, that a cable company will never allow streaming video to flow over its cable broadband lines if it competes with its cable television service. Even the right to "click through" to the Web won't be guaranteed, they warn, and companies are likely to turn the Internet into walled gardens of their own content -- think AOL with no escape hatch to Google. "The path the FCC is currently on will change the Internet that you know," said Cheryl Leanza of the Media Access Project (MAP), a public interest telecommunications law firm. "Currently, rules prevent phone companies from controlling content in any way. There is no content protection for cable, and the FCC has proposed to take away the protections on content discrimination for DSL. The impact will be breathtaking." Like consumer advocates, free-market supporters trumpet the importance of competition among ISPs, and fear a monopoly on broadband. But they think the access requirements and the other rules in the Telecom Act stifle rather than secure competition, innovation and investment, and the monopolist they are concerned about is Uncle Sam. "I'm a lot more worried about John Ashcroft than John Malone," quipped Gerald Faulhaber, chief economist of the FCC from 2000 to 2001, referring to the attorney general and to one of the top power brokers in the cable industry. At the heart of the argument that the free market will save us lies the belief that competition between DSL, cable, satellite, local wireless and other technology "platforms" not yet imagined will be more than enough to guarantee that consumers will get the Internet when, where, and however they want it. Even if one company enjoys a monopoly on one of those platforms, the theory goes, it will not amount to a monopoly on high-speed Internet access overall. Better still, they say, encouraging a horse race between platforms will mean that billions of dollars in private investment will pour into broadband infrastructure and equipment. "It's clear the FCC is moving toward putting cable off-limits to regulation [under the Telecommunications Act], and I think that's a great idea," said Faulhaber, who now teaches economics at Wharton. "I wish Michael Powell would do more to encourage platform competition. As long as people think this will be regulated, no competitor is going to jump in." Competition between platforms would indeed steal an awful lot of thunder from those making dire predictions that mega-corporations are about to capture control over the next generation of the Internet. If my cable company won't let me click through to the Web or get streaming video, I can get DSL, or a satellite dish, or a wireless connection. But the likelihood that robust competition will actually develop for a majority of households remains a hotly contested question. As of June 2001, the latest official statistics available from the FCC show 2.7 million U.S. households using DSL, 5.2 million using cable modem, and 200,000 broadband via satellite. Fifty-eight percent of U.S. zip codes (not necessarily households) had more than one broadband option available. Twenty percent of zip codes had no broadband service at all. Advocates of broadband deregulation tend to be very optimistic about the potential for interplatform competition to improve; its critics are not. The pessimists say that cable is too far ahead, that DSL doesn't have the bandwidth to compete with cable on key applications like video streaming, and that satellite broadband -- besides its tiny market share -- works well for downloading but not uploading. "In the abstract, no one would deny that 10 different platforms would be good," said Leanza of the Media Access Project. "But it's naive to assume that most people will have more than one platform available." Optimists point out that DSL is catching up and network upgrades would make it just as fast as cable modem, that satellite is a real option just needing time to develop, and that new options like local wireless, fiber to the home, even networks over power lines, will take off if local, state and federal bureaucracies would stop standing in the way. In the most extensive independent study of broadband to date, the National Research Council came to a mixed conclusion regarding interplatform competition. The report found that interplatform, or "facilities based," competition, is important and should be encouraged. But it also predicted it would not take hold everywhere and should not be relied on exclusively for consumer protection. "The report found that facilities-based competition is important, but don't assume you're going to get it," says David Clark, a computer scientist at MIT and a coauthor of the NRC study. Some locations, like big cities, might get three competitors, others two, and some just one, he said. Nevertheless, Clark cautiously endorsed the current FCC policy of deregulation. "The gamble is to get broadband out there, no matter what it looks like," Clark said. "You might try for a level of competition you don't get. You might gamble and lose. But I would say, get it out there." That is a gamble consumer advocates are not willing to take. In their view, the best possible outcome of the bet is bad, the worst case catastrophic. "Even if three top platforms reached every household, we will be trading hundreds of [ISP] choices for three," says Leanza, but she thinks even that number is too much to hope for. "Deregulation can only work if competition is in place," Leanza says. "You can't have both deregulation and monopoly, and that is where we are headed." Viewed in the context of the FCC's campaign to deregulate media and telecommunications in general, the concerns about who will control broadband become even more urgent. With quite a bit of prodding from the courts, the FCC has been tossing out or rewriting rules, called "ownership caps," that limit how large and broad media conglomerates can grow. The cap on how large cable companies can grow is gone. So is a limit on how many broadcast television stations one company can own. A "cross-ownership" rule forbidding cable companies from buying broadcast television stations has been scrapped. Another that forbids ownership of newspapers and television stations in the same market is under review, as is a restriction against owning more than one broadcast television station in the same city. Analysts agree the regulatory changes already made will soon unleash a new wave of consolidation in the media sector. Among companies that deliver broadband, the consolidation is already under way. In December, AT&T agreed to sell its cable division to Comcast, in a deal valued at $72 billion. If approved, the combined company will have 27 million subscribers, or about 40 percent of the cable market. EchoStar and DirecTV, the top two satellite television companies, have also announced plans to merge. The combined company would essentially have a monopoly on satellite television. The two companies argue they need to merge in order to compete with the likes of AT&T Comcast. "At the end of this, one company in a community could own the newspaper, several TV and radio stations, the cable company, the principal ISP -- maybe even the phone company!" said Jeff Chester, director of the Center for Digital Democracy. "This stands the First Amendment rights of citizens in the digital age on its head." For those who, like Chester, are worried that deregulation will result in a dangerous consolidation of power among a handful of media companies in traditional media like television, print, and radio, keeping the Internet out of their control has become all the more urgent. In their minds, the battle for broadband could amount to democracy's last stand. "This is a war for the heart of the Internet," Chester said. "Will a few telecoms be allowed to seize control of it, or will it be preserved as a democratic resource? It's David versus Goliath." The cable companies and Baby Bells disagree, arguing that there is sufficient competition both within and between platforms and that more can be expected. AT&T's cable division has voluntarily agreed to let EarthLink sell cable modem service over AT&T- owned cable in Boston and Seattle, and it is promising to open more markets soon. But skeptics say the company has been dragging its feet on opening access for years and is giving token access now to head off mandatory requirements as a condition of its pending merger with Comcast, another major cable company. As a condition of the merger between AOL and Time Warner last year, the Federal Trade Commission required the combined company to open its lines to at least three competing ISPs. But, oddly, the same cable corporations that oppose mandatory open access for their own cable networks are among the most eloquent and spirited advocates of continued mandatory access for the telephone lines. Both AT&T and AOL Time Warner have asked the FCC to maintain open access for DSL -- a market both would like to crack -- arguing that the rules protect consumers. Both companies oppose placing the same requirements on their cable networks, markets they would like to protect. "For decades, the FCC has successfully promoted the openness of our nation's wireline infrastructure," AOL Time Warner lawyers wrote in comments submitted to the FCC on its proposal to eliminate open-access requirements for DSL. "It understood that by ensuring non-discriminatory access to wireline networks, consumer welfare would be optimized." Hearing AOL laud the benefits that open access offers consumers on DSL, despite its opposition to such access for cable, triggers eye-rolling fits among consumer advocates who want open access for both cable broadband and DSL. "This double standard illustrates what's at stake," said Chester. "Media giants are manipulating broadband for their own purposes -- not the public interest." Asked why AT&T supported open-access requirements for phone lines of local carriers, but not for its own cable network, AT&T spokeswoman Claudia Jones said: "Cable and telephone are different animals. There is ubiquitous competition for cable. Satellite is really bringing competition to the cable market. But there is virtually no competition in the local telephone market. The Bells can't get what they wanted in Congress, so they are looking to the regulators." "The hypocrisy is outrageous," said the Consumer Federation of America's Mark Cooper. He thinks getting regulators to overrule Congress is exactly what AT&T's cable division has done by successfully persuading the FCC not to apply open-access requirements to cable broadband. In the end, the battle over broadband is about who has control over information. One unlikely but eloquent spokesman for the importance of fair access to information is FCC chairman Powell himself. Speaking at the Broadband Technology Summit in April, an event sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Powell said: "You name it, and information plays a vital role in making a decision, making a commitment, taking a risk, or agreeing to part with something of value. Often in these transactions the information one has will determine if the transaction is fair, or whether someone gets taken -- the taker having superior knowledge about the deal." For those who are convinced Powell's policy on broadband could permanently tip the balance of power over information toward massive corporations, the irony of his statement must be almost unbearable. But catastrophe is hardly assured. Perhaps technology and the free market will come to the rescue. They have before. What is certain is that by deregulating broadband, the FCC is taking a tremendous risk that could have unforeseen consequences. A risk few people even know they are taking, fewer still understand, and only four get to vote on. The scenario is not new. In 1981, Congress quietly eased restrictions on savings and loan houses, allowing them to invest their federally insured deposits however they pleased, even in, say, junk bonds. In the mid-1990s, the SEC softened rules that had prevented accounting firms from consulting for their auditing clients. Aside from a few stray government watchdogs, a handful of Beltway bureaucrats, and a clutch of corporate lawyers, those obscure but radical experiments in deregulation went unnoticed -- until it was too late. Copyright 2002 Salon.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Sat Jun 8 20:22:57 2002 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 20:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Feds Worked to Quash College Protests Message-ID: <200206090322.UAA18535@scn.org> Nice article about Reagan and the FBI. http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0100&id=0206082136520134 -- Doug * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Sun Jun 9 17:10:35 2002 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 17:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: To all residents of Earth -- Talk back to your TV!! Message-ID: <200206100010.RAA14953@scn.org> Time is short! Please forward this note ASAP. Let's get a good showing on this... -- Doug Schuler, Public Sphere Project Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility ------------------------------------------------------------- To all residents of Earth; TWO CABLE FRANCHISE HEARINGS TUESDAY, JUNE 11 (King County and City of Seattle, Washington State) 1. KING COUNTY, 9:30 AM AT THE COUNTY BUILDING (3RD AND JAMES), THE LABOR, OPERATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE. 2. CITY OF SEATTLE, 4 PM AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING (600 FOURTH AVE), 11TH FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS. There will be two hearings on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 to decide the technological future of Seattle and King County. The hearings will consider the request of AT&T and Comcast to merge, creating the largest cable company in the U.S., and the monopoly provider in Seattle and King County. Some might say the deal is done, but your personal efforts can help change the outcome. Seattle in particular has asked little of its telecom franchisees, in comparison to other cities. But much more is at stake: the new company will be able to control the provision of high-speed Internet services in Seattle and King County. It will be positioned to move away from open source and public standards to a proprietary model, the fabled 'Walled Garden.' The innovation, economic growth, and technological access we've come to rely on could disappear. When you come to the hearing, sign up to speak on the issues that matter most to you. A selection of pertinent issues follows, but you can add your own. If you can't attend the hearing please call, write or fax your county and/or city council. Let them know what you think! + Ban anticompetitive practices: What good are 150 television channels if you cannot get your favorite sports events? Not much, if you live in Philadelphia, where Comcast, the dominant cable company, refuses to allow competing video distributors, such as the satellite-dish companies, to carry local sports channels. In Seattle, AT&T already blacks out sports events and other programming carried on Canadian channels. Local franchise authorities can ban such anticompetitive practices. + Require Open Access: Cable is the dominant Seattle-area provider of high-speed Internet service. AT&T - Comcast have prevented Internet service providers from selling Internet access to the public. After announcing the merger, they each selected one additional ISP in some communities to sell Internet access, under terms and conditions that restrict serious competition with their own monopoly services. They lock out "streaming video" from competitors and restrict the ways consumers can send data out of their residences and businesses, such as transmitting large amounts of data or video, or networking two computers at home. As a result, Internet innovation is stifled and free speech is threatened. Streaming of government meetings will be restricted, and citizens will be unable to implement interactive television. Seattle's important local ISP industry will be frozen out of the marketplace, and locally produced profits will be transferred out of the region. + Oppose their "commercial access": it bears no resemblance to the open access that was critical to the creation and development of the Internet. A ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals says LFAs can insist on an open access requirement. King County has required it for several years. At a minimum, LFAs should insist on a most-favored city (county) clause that demands the most open access afforded anyplace else in the country be given in Seattle/King County. + Financial Commitments and Quality of Service. The acquisition price Comcast paid for AT&T is high. The debt load AT&T is carrying is heavy because of its earlier acquisitions of TCI and MediaOne. The need to increase cash flow is severe. When monopolies like cable are concerned, this translates into only three ways to make money - raising prices, cutting capital expenditures, and reducing customer service. We experienced this with TCI and Viacom; let's not go through that mess again! Local Franchising Authorities can impose specific build out and quality of service targets and back them up with penalties. + Responsible Management: Comcast's management will be calling the shots. At the same time, the form of ownership is being changed to reduce the reporting and oversight of local operations, which will allow profits to be funneled out of local communities back to corporate headquarters. In the post-Enron, -Adelphia, -Global Crossing, -MCIWorldCom, -Tyco era, this type of ownership without responsibility and responsibility without ownership is unacceptable. LFAs can insist on accountability for finances, imposing reporting requirements and reinvestment in the community. + Full funding for the public, including public access television, institutional network, and technology access: LFA's in this region have historically traded away significant public benefits in exchange for promises, tiny community investments, and vanity projects. Meanwhile other communities, such as Tacoma, Portland, and Grant County have been getting on with the digital revolution, wiring their cities with public fiber infrastructure, new digital community television stations, and advanced community technology projects. Its time for Seattle, King County, and the other LFAs to demand most-favored city treatment in terms of public benefits. It's a small price to pay for the inconvenience of having the streets torn up and our views degraded by cable wires. + Demand TOTAL PRIVACY; your televisions viewing habits and surfing locations should be as confidential as your library records or your video store rentals. Customers deserve, and must demand 'total privacy' for every aspect of their use of services. Demand the LFAs prohibit data mining, video silhouetting, cross-selling, list sharing, and every other use of the customers information, or derived from their use. Europeans and Canadians have long enjoyed such privacy; its time we joined the majority of jurisdiction and just say no! Demand TOTAL PRIVACY!! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Sun Jun 9 22:37:49 2002 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:37:49 -0700 Subject: SCN: Access Message-ID: <3D03D8BD.21424.48BAC90@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ====================== (Sarah Horton, NY Times)---There is a wall outside my window. I have an attractive first-floor office in a newly constructed building on the campus of Dartmouth College. But my view is obscured by a pillared free-standing wall that runs parallel to the north face of the building. The wall has no structural purpose; its function is purely aesthetic. Contemplating this wall daily has brought me face to face with the senseless barriers that are built in the name of design, particularly in my own design specialty: the Web. As a Web designer, I do not consciously build walls, but like the architect of my office building, I do fall prey to vanity. I use design to draw attention to myself and to my work. I want people to be delighted when they look at my Web pages. I want them to notice my designs. But just as the wall obstructs my view of the world outside my office window, my fancy graphics and page designs are often simple barriers between people and the information they seek. Take something as basic as access to the daily news. People who cannot see can nevertheless read the Web using text-to-speech software. And because there are loads of news sources on the Web, blind people should theoretically have access to much more information online than in the print world, where they often must rely on the availability of alternative versions, like audio recordings or Braille. But with the Web's current hyperactive state, text-to-speech access to the daily news is tedious at best, impossible at worst. Screen-reader software works only when it has text to read. Graphics are not text. Flash animations and navigation are not text. Video is not text. PDF files often are not text. So unless the Web developer provides a "text equivalent" in the page's underlying code, material in these formats is inaccessible to people who rely on screen-reader software. Consider the news site MSNBC.com. The site uses graphic text for its navigation links, which cannot be read by screen-reader software. Nor can the text be enlarged by people who can see only large type. Because the site's developer did not provide alternative text in the code of the pages, when the screen reader encounters the Sports link, it reads the link's U.R.L., which sounds like "slash news slash s p t underline front dot asp link." Huh? Another potential barrier on the MSNBC site is the video, which is great and interesting and useful, but only if you can hear and see (and are running Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player). There are no captions, text transcripts or descriptions to accompany the video and audio material. Peter Dorogoff, a spokesman for MSNBC.com, said the site's developers would continue to assess its usefulness to the largest possible audience. "We've addressed the broadest accessibility issues within the constraints of our publishing tool and other necessary resources," Mr. Dorogoff said. "We continue to monitor and evaluate accessibility across the site and have made a concerted effort to achieve this goal on a consistent basis, sitewide." There is no reason to single out MSNBC.com. The New York Times on the Web, for example, presents its own barriers. Every page on the Web site has graphics and advertising at the top and an extensive set of navigation links along the left side. Sighted people, if they choose to, can skip the advertisements, the last updated date, the search features and log-in information and the more than 50 navigation links and jump straight to the headlines. But for people who rely on text-to-speech software, skipping over those elements is not an option. Screen-reader software reads sequentially, starting at the top of the page. This means that blind people must listen to the advertisements and navigation before reaching the main content, and they must do this on every page of the site. Stephen P. Newman, the assistant general manager of NYTimes.com, says the Times Web site is frequently redesigned. "For each redesign," he said, "we gather feedback from our readers during comprehensive user testing and focus groups. So our designs currently reflect the needs of the majority of our users." Accessible design does not mean doing away with navigation links, graphics and banner advertisements. Accessible design means designing in features that accommodate all users. For example, some sites, like CNN.com, have added a special "skip navigation" link at the top of every page that is invisible to sighted people but is detected by screen-reader software. When activated, this link directs the screen reader's focus to the main content of the page. The "skip navigation" convention is a fairly recent one, and sites that lack this feature were probably designed before people started talking about accessibility. Indeed, most Web barriers result from errors of omission and unintended consequences. But some Web sites do seem designed with a deliberate lack of flexibility. People wanting to play games at HarryPotter.com, for instance, had better arrive with a current browser, the Flash plug- in, and good vision and hearing. Otherwise, they won't make it past the intro page. Most of the site is in the Flash format, which allows animations, sounds, fancy fonts and other cool features that are not available using standard Web coding. It also means the pages on this site cannot be enlarged or rendered to speech, and they are not easily accessible from the keyboard. The site is fun for those who are able to use it, and I doubt that its developers are mean spirited. But they did make a choice to favor the cool over the practical and most widely accessible. Macromedia recently released a new version of Flash, Flash MX, which allows developers to include more accessibility features in their Flash presentations. Don Buckley, the senior vice president for interactive marketing at Warner Brothers Pictures, said that the topic of access for people with disabilities was "of great interest" and that the Web site's developers "would certainly be looking at the technology." Maybe the developers at Warner Brothers will revise the site to include some of these new features, or, better yet, use plain old HTML to build a new, flexible Diagon Alley that's accessible and fun for everyone. Now that would be cool. It does not necessarily take more time or cost more money to design accessible Web sites. The Web was designed to be flexible. Why not work within the medium and build Web sites that are accessible to the largest possible audience? The Web is so much more than image. The Web is an access point, an entryway, a window on the world. Let's not allow fancy walls to block the view. Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From tikong21 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 10 02:30:47 2002 From: tikong21 at yahoo.com (SyAtAkirANa) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 02:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: ada apa lagi? Message-ID: <20020610093047.60652.qmail@web21201.mail.yahoo.com> Sin, ada apa lagi? elo udah terima cek dari gue belum? kan terakhir kita ngomong gue baru dapat duit lagi akhir juni, ntar pas duit itu udah masuk account gue elo tinggal ambil, ntar gue kasih tau. ya wes lah, kalo ada apa-apa hubungin gue di email ini aja. I check this e-mail everyday :) --tiki Don't screw up the best thing in your life just because you're not sure of who u r --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From events at jewishnetwork.com Mon Jun 10 12:06:35 2002 From: events at jewishnetwork.com (Andrew Weitzen) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:06:35 -0100 Subject: SCN: Reminder: please list your Jewish events on JewishNetwork.com Message-ID: Hello Jewish Leaders and others needing to reach the Jewish community, If you have not already done so, please list your upcoming summer events on www.JewishNetwork.com. (See the bottom for removal information) This is a free Jewish event listing service. Please let the Jewish community know about the great events you are running. Even if you already list events on your own website, listing your events on www.JewishNetwork.com will help increase your audience, especially to those people that do not know about you. You can also use www.JewishNetwork.com to display just your organization's events. This is useful for putting a link on your website to your events. See below for details. Organizations like Aish HaTorah, B'nai B'rith, Chabad, Hillel, Isralight, JCCs, Jewish Federations, Jewish singles, Mosaic Outdoor Club, synagogues and many others benefit from increased attendance by listing their events. There is no charge to list or view events. To update events yourself. Go to www.JewishNetwork.com and click the "Event" link in the upper right. Alternately you can email event information to events at jewishnetwork.com or reply to this email. Please let us know how we can help you. Shalom, Andrew Weitzen, General Manager events at jewishnetwork.com www.JewishNetwork.com ====================================== DISPLAY JUST YOUR ORGANIZATION'S EVENTS ====================================== After you enter your events, you can use this link to display just your organization's current events. http://www.jewishnetwork.com/asp/main_event/event_user_list_direct_form.asp?idorg=xxxx Replace "xxxx" in the link with your organization ID. You can use this link on your website, in your emailings or cut and paste the event information into another program. =================== Removal Information =================== If this reached you inappropriately we apologize for the inconvenience. Please reply to this email with the word "remove" in the subject. Make sure you are sending from scn at scn.org or put "remove scn at scn.org" in the subject. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From PillStore at excite.com Tue Jun 11 23:19:03 2002 From: PillStore at excite.com (Pill Store) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:19:03 -1700 Subject: SCN: Weight Loss Pills - On Special - WFHFZUI Message-ID: <000018165c36$00007db2$000061ba@xmxpita.excite.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgarnett at aadf.nl Wed Jun 12 07:26:48 2002 From: cgarnett at aadf.nl (Business World) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:26:48 -1900 Subject: SCN: Low Cost Easy to Use Conferencing Message-ID: <000003ff7450$000050ee$00004992@ulysses.noc.NTUA.GR> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy at scn.org Wed Jun 12 11:50:58 2002 From: randy at scn.org (Randy Groves) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: 10 years!! Message-ID: It is a sobering thought. At the end of this year, we will begin our 10th year of operation. Yes. It has been 10 years since we first put up the 386 in the basement of a Seattle Public Library building that no longer exists. It has been 10 years since free access was a novel idea. It has been 10 years since access to the Internet was a novel idea. We are still here. Perhaps this event should be our wake up call. The time to re-dedicate our organization to the principles and ideas that formed the bedrock of our creation. What say you? Are you up for it? -randy * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas at scn.org Wed Jun 12 12:13:29 2002 From: douglas at scn.org (Doug Schuler) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: 10 years!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ramdy, I support your June 12th call to the citizens of SCN!! Next year also is the US World Summit on the Information Society and SCN has helped define the civil sector side of this. I'd like to see a one-day "open space" retreat where we invite everybody from the SCN community -- past, current, and future -- to figure out what's needed and what we can do to meet those needs. I think my situation is similar to others: I'd like to help and I need smallish tasks that are meaningful to me to let me help. -- Doug ****************************************************************** * SHAPING THE NETWORK SOCIETY * * Patterns for Participation, Action, and Change * * http://diac.cpsr.org/cgi-bin/diac02/pattern.cgi/ * * Tomorrow's information and communication infrastructure * * is being shaped today... * * But by whom and to what ends? * * Public Sphere Project (CPSR) http://www.scn.org/sphere * ****************************************************************** On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Randy Groves wrote: > > It is a sobering thought. > > At the end of this year, we will begin our 10th year of operation. > > Yes. It has been 10 years since we first put up the 386 in the basement > of a Seattle Public Library building that no longer exists. > > It has been 10 years since free access was a novel idea. > > It has been 10 years since access to the Internet was a novel idea. > > We are still here. > > Perhaps this event should be our wake up call. > > The time to re-dedicate our organization to the principles and ideas that > formed the bedrock of our creation. > > What say you? > > Are you up for it? > > -randy > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bn890 at scn.org Wed Jun 12 12:33:50 2002 From: bn890 at scn.org (Irene Mogol) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: 10 years!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I say HAPPY ANNIVERSARY to us and I hope we can continue. Irene Mogol ### On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Randy Groves wrote: > > It is a sobering thought. > > At the end of this year, we will begin our 10th year of operation. > > Yes. It has been 10 years since we first put up the 386 in the basement > of a Seattle Public Library building that no longer exists. > > It has been 10 years since free access was a novel idea. > > It has been 10 years since access to the Internet was a novel idea. > > We are still here. > > Perhaps this event should be our wake up call. > > The time to re-dedicate our organization to the principles and ideas that > formed the bedrock of our creation. > > What say you? > > Are you up for it? > > -randy > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From PillStore at excite.com Thu Jun 13 02:39:19 2002 From: PillStore at excite.com (Pill Store) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:39:19 -1700 Subject: SCN: Viagra - For Men and Women XS Message-ID: <000049603cf2$0000472a$00000b84@xmxpita.excite.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randyandhoss at msn.com Wed Jun 12 18:17:53 2002 From: randyandhoss at msn.com (Randy and Hoss) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:17:53 -0700 Subject: SCN: Re: 10 years!! References: Message-ID: WOO HOO!!! Look at us, 10 years old! Yes, I agree. Count me in.... Randy * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From PillStore at excite.com Thu Jun 13 07:09:54 2002 From: PillStore at excite.com (Pill Store) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:09:54 -1700 Subject: SCN: -: Finally Female Viagra is Here :- ATZJP Message-ID: <0000052309dc$0000646a$000035f9@xmxpita.excite.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy at scn.org Thu Jun 13 14:02:18 2002 From: randy at scn.org (Randy Groves) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: 10 years!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well I must have been asleep that day in kindergarten, because it's been pointed out to me by folks that can count better than I that I was at least a year off. We actually started operation on December 31, 1993. Which puts the start of our 10th year at the END of 2002, rather than at the beginning. But what the hey! We can spend the whole year in preparation!! -randy On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Doug Schuler wrote: > > Ramdy, > > I support your June 12th call to the citizens of SCN!! > > Next year also is the US World Summit on the Information Society > and SCN has helped define the civil sector side of this. > > I'd like to see a one-day "open space" retreat where we invite > everybody from the SCN community -- past, current, and future -- > to figure out what's needed and what we can do to meet those > needs. I think my situation is similar to others: I'd like to > help and I need smallish tasks that are meaningful to me to let > me help. > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * *