Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

"Re: The United States' Findings and Conclusions Based on its Investigation Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of the University of California at Berkeley, DJ No. 204"

Lettera del Dipartimento della Giustizia US in merito al procedimento per violazione della Americans with Disabilities Act (Legge sugli americani con disabilità, +/- equivalente della Legge Stanca italiana)

"The US Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division is doing everything that it can to make the web and information technology (IT) more accessible to people with disabilities. One of the most effective ways to achieve this goal is by following up on complaints submitted by citizens who feel their rights to use the internet are being denied by an organization's inaccessible technology. A landscape portrait featuring Berkeley's Campanile tower in the foreground and a rainy San Francisco Bay in the background That's exactly what happened when, in October 2014, the DOJ began investigating the free, public MOOC (Massive open online course) system offered by University of California, Berkeley when deaf and hard of hearing individuals complained they could not access the audio and video content on the site. On August 30, 2016, the DOJ submitted a 10-page letter to the administration at UC Berkeley stating that they had found the university's MOOC content to be in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which protects disabled people from discrimination. Legal Context: How Are MOOCs Subject to Accessibility Laws? The laws surrounding free online course content accessibility are not explicit."

L'articolo descrive il contesto e gli aspetti giuridici del confronto sull'accessibilità tra Dipartimento della Giustizia US e l'Università di Berkeley.

Chris Hoofnagle, director of BCLT's privacy programs | 3/6/13 "...We need to be less infatuated with "the cloud," which to some extent is a marketing fad. Many of the putative benefits of the cloud are disclaimed in these services' terms of service. For instance, a 2009 survey of 31 contracts found that, "…In effect, a number of providers of consumer-oriented Cloud services appear to disclaim the specific fitness of their services for the purpose(s) for which many customers will have specifically signed up to use them." The same researchers found that providers' business models were related to the generosity of terms. This militates towards providers that charge some fee for service as opposed to "free" ones that monetize user data. We should charge our IT professionals with the duty of documenting problems with outsourced services. To more objectively understand the cloud phenomenon, we should track the real costs associated with outsourcing, including outages, the costs of managing the relationship with Google, and the technical problems that users experience. Outsourcing is not costless. We could learn that employees have simply been transferred from the operation of CalMail to the management of bMail. We should not assume that systems mean fewer people-they may appropriately require meaningful staffing to fulfill our needs. As the expiration date of system wide Google contract approaches in June 2015, these metrics will help us make an economical decision. Finally, there are technical approaches that, if effective, could blunt, but not completely eliminate, the privacy problems created by cloud services. Encryption tools, such as CipherCloud, exist to mask data from Google itself. This can help hide the content of messages, reduce data mining risks from Google, and cause the government to have to come to Berkeley officials to gain access to content. The emergence of these services indicates that there is a shared concern about s

Attenzione alla data: alcune cose potrebbero essere cambiate nel frattempo.

" We look forward to continued dialog with the Department of Justice regarding the requirements of the ADA and options for compliance. Yet we do so with the realization that, due to our current financial constraints, we might not be able to continue to provide free public content under the conditions laid out by the Department of Justice to the extent we have in the past. In many cases the requirements proposed by the department would require the university to implement extremely expensive measures to continue to make these resources available to the public for free. We believe that in a time of substantial budget deficits and shrinking state financial support, our first obligation is to use our limited resources to support our enrolled students. Therefore, we must strongly consider the unenviable option of whether to remove content from public access. Please know that we fully intend to exhaust every available option to retain or restore free public availability of online content. It is our hope that we will find an appropriate resolution with the Department of Justice that allows us to serve the extended seeing- and hearing-impaired community and continue to provide free online content."

Risposta di Berkeley alla lettera del Dipartimento di Giustizia US sulla non conformità dei materiali di corso con i requisiti della legge.

"Last week, the University made its decision final, and announced that it will begin the process of removing all the content on March 15th. To add insult to injury, it turns out that removing this digital library will ultimately end up requiring about five months worth of work- a cost UC Berkeley will be forced to pay."

Articolo "anti-stato" sulla disputa tra Berkeley e il Dipartimento della Giustizia US (DoJ) in merito all'accessibilità dei corsi pubblici di Berkeley. L'autrice ignora deliberatamente diversi fatti: il riconoscimento da parte del DoJ degli sforzi di Berkeley per implementare l'accessibilità, il fatto che i video inaccessibili non verranno cancellati, ma il loro accesso verrà per ora ristretto, ecc,

"UC Berkeley announced Wednesday that it would restrict public access to existing educational content after a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation concluded that many of the video captions did not meet standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Campus will instead invest in developing new online content with necessary accessibility features, according to campus spokesperson Roqua Montez. Montez said that because of limited viewership of more than 20,000 course capture videos and a projected cost of at least $1 million for captioning, campus decided not to revamp the videos deemed inaccessible. "On average, the older videos were watched for less than 8 minutes," Montez said. "(It) doesn't make sense to go back and do that, given the budget climate we are in. We had to weigh that as a factor.""

Articolo sull'annuncio di Berkeley del ritiro dalla visibilità pubblica dei video non conformi ai requisiti di accessibilità