[nabs-l] Confused- regarding- NFB Google Apps Complaint

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

Here, here!  *smile*

Bridgit P

Message: 29
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:43:23 -0600
From: "Scott C. LaBarre" <slabarre at labarrelaw.com>
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] confused - regarding - NFB Google Apps complaint
Message-ID: <511B03ECDC63464A9DDD855AFB27A4C9 at labarre>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response

Greetings, for a variety of reasons, I usually try to stay silent on
most of 
the interesting issues discussed on this list.  Mostly, it is an issue
of 
time.  I appreciate very much the spirited debate and exploration of
ideas 
among the student group.  As many of you may know, I served as President
of 
NABS in the early 1990's and therefore have a very fond place in my
heart 
for student matters.

With respect to the issue at hand, I guess you might say that  I am  a
part 
of the "they" that everyone keeps tossing around.  My good friend Dave 
Andrews is right to say that there has been a great deal of far flung 
speculation and off target surmising regarding the motivation of the NFB
in 
this Google matter.

We affect our advocacy initiatives through a variety of means, some of
which 
are legal complaints filed both in court and with administrative
agencies. 
Any direct legal action is first carefully considered  and then executed

just as carefully.  All of our legal actions are anchored in one way or
the 
other in Federation policy as adopted by the National Convention and
through 
the resolution process.  Ultimately, Dr. Maurer, our President, makes
the 
call on a day-to-day basis about the legal matters we pursue.  I have
worked 
with Dr. Maurer on these matters in one way or the other ever since I 
graduated law school in 1993.  I assure you that he is very judicious
and 
mindful of the Federation resources we expend on legal advocacy.

With specific respect to Google, we have called  upon them to create 
accessible applications for a long time.  We continue to have meetings
with 
Google and recently we have hopefully found the right people within the 
corporate labyrinth to be engaging.  I suspect you will be hearing from
Dr. 
Maurer soon about these recent initiatives.

It is essentially true that we cannot direct legal complaints directly
at 
Google because of the current structure of the law.  That is why we have

structured these complaints against educational entities who use Google 
apps. We have to make it clear to entities who use products like those
of 
Google that we will no longer tolerate inaccessibility when
accessibility 
can readily be achieved either by fixing the underlying problem with the

particular provider or using some other provider.

Additionally, the filing of DOJ complaints is a very useful method and 
allows for more flexibility, in many ways, than simply filing a lawsuit
in a 
traditional court of law.  Over the years, we have achieved many 
comprehensive and creative settlements with DOJ involved.

This time in history is critical.  We will either stake out our rightful

place in the information age or that age will race right past us.  There
are 
many ways to achieve our objective, one of them is the pursuit of well 
targeted legal complaints.  Other ways include legislative approaches
such 
as our introduction of the Technology Bill of Rights into the Congress. 
Once we get this legislation passed, a whole variety of technology 
manufacturers including software companies will have to consider
nonvisual 
access on the front end of their designs.  Also, we continue to educate 
technology providers of the importance of nonvisual access through a
variety 
of means.

The rapid growth of technology presents us with great opportunity.
However, 
if we do not insist upon nonvisual accessibility now, a great deal of
the 
future infrastructure will be built in such a way that it will become
much 
more expensive to fix the system  after it is already built.  When we
have 
meaningful nonvisual access, technology can open the same doors to us
that 
are available to the sighted.  If we don't have such nonvisual access,
the 
barriers we face can become tremendous.  Information technology has
become 
such an integral part of every day life that our independence is
directly 
tied to the ability to access this technology.  Failure to act at this 
crucial time in history will set us farther out of the mainstream than
we 
have been before.

That is why we, the NFB, are so active in these technology based cases.
We 
pursue with equal vigor legislative and educational solutions as well
.
Respectfully yours,  I am, Scott C. LaBarre, Esq.

LaBarre Law Offices P.C.
1660 South Albion Street, Ste. 918
Denver, Colorado 80222
303 504-5979 (voice)
303 757-3640 (fax)
slabarre at labarrelaw.com (e-mail)
www.labarrelaw.com (website)