GooveShark Kicked out of Android Store

There has been alot of litigation happening and threatened litigation over YouTube and other sites where Google is defending their ability to generate income from user-generated content.

In that political environment, Google decided to pull the GrooveShark app from the Android Store. Unlike an iPhone or other iOS device, Android users can still download the GrooveShark Android App and use it without rooting, just not from the official Android store.

Until Spotify makes it to the states, this may be the only choice for those of us who want more control over our playlists than Last.fm or Pandora give us.

Nobody Reads Privacy Policies

Facebook is not the only site that tracks, shares and sells your data. You allow it everytime you click through that agreement. When was the last time you actually read through the whole agreement before saying yes? Never? Well, apparently you are not alone.

According to a study done by SelectOut, most people do not read them. There is a reason why: They are too long. Take a look at the infographic below to see what the averages are for about 1000 of the top sites.

The longest privacy policies among the top 1,000 websites would take around 45 minutes to read. The average policy takes around 10 minutes to read.

And while most of the websites (72%) allow users to opt out of tracking mechanisms, around 40% require their users to take a few extra clicks to the Network Advertising Initiative’s website to opt out.

Should privacy policies and terms of service be short and sweet enough for users to actually read them, or do you think that would increase tracking opt-outs enough that it would hurt the companies in question?

Legal Precedent Set for Web Accessibility

508 accessibility is now starting to be taken quite seriously…and legally. The internet is very young in the big scheme of things, but I hope that it will not take a hundred years before it is equally usable and utilized by everyone. Our society is richer, wiser and more interesting now that we are embracing the input and participation of our traditionally under served and disenfranchised citizens.

Lets not make the same mistake for the web and its netizens.

LEGAL PRECEDENT SET FOR WEB ACCESSIBILITY
Federal Court Issues Landmark Decision Certifying Nationwide Class Action Against Target Corporation to Make its Web Site Accessible to the Blind

San Francisco, California (October 2, 2007): A federal district court judge issued two landmark decisions today in a nationwide class action against Target Corporation. First, the court certified the case as a class action on behalf of blind Internet users throughout the country under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Second, the court held that Web sites such as target.com are required by California law to be accessible.

The President of the National Federation of the Blind, Dr. Marc Maurer, commented on the court’s ruling: “This is a tremendous step forward for blind people throughout the country who for too long have been denied equal access to the Internet economy. All e-commerce businesses should take note of this decision and immediately take steps to open their doors to the blind.”

Larry Paradis of Disability Rights Advocates, one of the lead counsel for the class, commented on the court’s decision: “Target Corporation has led a battle against blind consumers in a key area of modern life: the Internet economy. The court’s decision today makes clear that people with disabilities no longer can be treated as second-class citizens in any sphere of mainstream life. This ruling will benefit hundreds of thousands of Americans with disabilities.”

The ruling was issued in a case brought by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB). The suit charges that Target failed and refused to make its Web site (www.target.com) accessible to the blind and, therefore, violated the ADA as well as two California civil rights statutes: the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a nationwide class under the ADA for injunctive relief. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a California subclass for both injunctive relief and statutory minimum damages. The court denied Target’s motion for summary judgment.

The court certified, as counsel for the class, the following law firms: Disability Rights Advocates (www.dralegal.org), a Berkeley-based nonprofit law firm that specializes in high-impact cases on behalf of people with disabilities; Brown, Goldstein & Levy (www.browngold.com), a leading civil rights law firm in Baltimore, Maryland; Schneider & Wallace (www.schneiderwallace.com), a national plaintiffs’ class action and civil rights law firm based in San Francisco, California; and Peter Blanck, chairman of the Burton Blatt Institute and university professor at Syracuse University (www.bbi.syr.edu).

Dan Goldstein of Brown, Goldstein & Levy noted that: “The blind of America seek only the same rights and opportunities as others take for granted. This case should be a wake-up call to all businesses that their services must be accessible to all.”

Josh Konecky of Schneider & Wallace also noted: “This has been a hard-fought case addressing fundamental issues of access and equality. The judge’s decision today is a great step forward.”

Original Article at http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php