Subject: Re: captcha

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 17:40:16 +0100

-----Original Message-----
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <[email-masked]>; "Devrim GUNDUZ" <[email-masked]>; "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: 09/08/06 17:08
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] captcha

> Well... and this is nothing against disabled people, but really.. why do 
> we care about UK laws? 
> Technically we are based in panama at least that 
> is where we are sourced yes?

The wwwmaster backup box is in .uk, and yes, it would be subject to UK law (which iirc came from an EU directive so similar laws most likely  are/will be enacted elsewhere in Europe).

/D

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:52:13 -0700

> 
> The wwwmaster backup box is in .uk, and yes, it 
 >would be subject to UK law (which iirc came from an EU directive so 
similar laws most likely  are/will be enacted elsewhere in Europe).

O.k. now that makes sense. Does it makes sense to move wwwmaster to a 
more *liberal* country ;) (/me says that knowing that it is an odd use 
of the word liberal).

I am not arguing one way or the other, just trying to help. I personally 
don't care about the comments and think they should be pushed to a wiki 
style system anyway.

Joshua D. Drake

-- 

    === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
    Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/

---

From: "Gavin M. Roy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 19:56:41 -0700

I find it hard to believe it's against the law for an individual or  
non-commercial/non-business group to make an inaccessible website.   
Perhaps for businesses or government agencies, but if the UK has said  
that individual sites run by individuals have to be fully accessible,  
well, that's just a bit wonky.

Not that I'm against accessibility... I just find the idea of the  
legality of what one does on ones own website with regard to  
accessibility or inaccessibility to be a bit off.

If this is specifically about the DDA, then according to

http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/PublicWebsite/ 
public_legalcase.hcsp#P39_3186

I don't believe we have a problem.

"Websites may be covered under the employment provisions, as they may  
be a means of advertising jobs; or there may be an intranet which  
staff need to use. Websites will most commonly be covered when they  
constitute the provision of a service, or they are related to  
education."

and the example

“What services are affected by the Act? An airline company provides a  
flight reservation and booking service to the public on its website.  
This is a provision of a service and is subject to the act.”

So it seems to apply to service oriented businesses or employment  
related websites.  Even at that it seems to be big brotherish to  
me.   What it also appears to come down to is it someone is disabled  
and feels discriminated against by the website, then they have the  
right to sue the owner of the site.

Gavin

On Aug 9, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> >would be subject to UK law (which iirc came from an EU directive  
> so similar laws most likely  are/will be enacted elsewhere in Europe).