Lordy, Lordy, Look Who's 40 - ATM Machines!

It's hard to believe that, at one time, in order to do our banking, we had to go to a bank teller to perform our transactions, and we had to make sure that we did those transactions during "banker's hours" (9:00 AM - 4:00 PM). Now, we can perform our banking transactions 24/7 with the Internet and ATM machines.

Forty years ago, the first ATM machine was implemented in the United Kingdom at a north London branch of Barclays Bank. Back then, the machine only dispensed cash. The man credited for developing the first ATM machine at Barclays Bank is John Shepherd-Barron, OBE. ATMs really didn't catch on in the United States until about 5 years later, although Shepherd-Barron did present the idea to Miami bankers in 1967.

Apparently there is a controversy on who really invented the ATM machine. While the UK acknowledges Shepherd-Barron as the "inventor" of the ATM machine, the Smithsonian Institute actually credits American Don Wetzel as the "inventor" of the ATM machine. Web site ATM Machine, a company that sells ATM machines, actually did comprehensive research on who is the real inventor of the ATM.

More on Verizon v. Vonage

Here are some updates on the Verizon v. Vonage saga:

• On April 24th, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Vonage can continue to sign up new customers while Vonage is appealing the patent infringement loss to Verizon.


• While the appeal is pending, Vonage plans to continue paying a 5.5 percent royalty rate on all future sales to an escrow account, and it has posted a $66 million (USD) bond

Even with these findings, Vonage's operations are still in trouble. Vonage has admitted in an Security and Exchange commission filing that they began to lose customers before the ruling, and all the legal trouble could lead to bankruptcy.

Woo-hoo, woo-hoo-hoo! Maybe not.....(Verizon v. Vonage)

For those of you who are not familiar with the case, Verizon sued Vonage for patent infringement regarding their VoIP technology and won the case. Does that mean that Vonage is a dead company? It's not dead yet, but it's on life support. A judge in an April 6th hearing found that Vonage can still provide services to their existing customers, but they cannot acquire new customers. Even with that finding, an appeals court can override that ruling. Even though as of now Vonage can support their existing customers, it's possible that Vonage may cease operations.

What if you or your small business is an existing Vonage customer? How can you prepare for a potential Vonage collapse? The good news is time is on your side. You have time to evaluate your VoIP needs and choose another provider.

This article from VoIP News is written for IT professionals on how to prepare for a potential Vonage collapse. This article highlights how to plan for choosing a new provider and what to consider when you decide to make the switch.

Could the Communications Decency Act Get Revised?

See the latest updates on the dontdatehimgirl.com case in the comments....

Introduction
The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 protects minors (people under 18 years of age) from obscene electronic communication. Another part of the CDA deals with libel and slander on the Internet. According to the CDA, if libelous or slanderous speech is published on a web site, the web site operator is not liable for the information if it is posted by someone. For example, if someone goes on the forum on my web site and publishes slanderous statements about a figure, I am not liable for what that poster said (although the victim can pursue legal action against the poster). There is a defamation lawsuit currently happening that may change that.

To summarize the case, Todd Hollis is suing Tasha Joseph, the web operator of dontdatehimgirl.com, for defamation of character. According to the case, an anonymous poster posted false, slanderous comments about Mr. Hollis, and Ms. Joseph refused to remove the comments when she was asked by Mr. Hollis to do so. It was recommended to Mr. Hollis to post a rebuttal comment or to post his own web site countering the charges.


John Seigenthaler Sr. lost a legal battle with Wikipedia over a "prankster" posting on Wikipedia that he (Mr. Seigenthaler) was involved in the assasination of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. This is the case that actually added the section (section 230) to the CDA absolving web site operators of liability from users posting information on their sites


Although there is a precedence that was already set regarding libelous information published on a web site, the lawyers for Mr. Hollis are finding holes in the law protecting web site operators. If the case is found in Mr. Hollis's favor, this could change how web site operators maintain their sites.

My Take
As a web site operator, what do I think of this situation?

The intention of Section 230 of the CDA was supposed to help promote the freedom of legal speech on the Internet. I can understand the fear of changing Section 230 because America is becoming a more litigious society. If someone decided to post an opinion of a product, service, or person on a web site, the person being critiqued could "cry foul" and sue the web site operator and the poster for defamation. Although the lawsuit would probably be dismissed because the person was expressing an opinion and not stating comments as fact, it would still cost the web site operator money and time to fight the legal battle.

However, I have two concerns regarding Section 230:

• Even though I am not liable for what someone publishes on my site, whether it's on my forums or on this blog, I still try to practice due diligence by monitoring comments before I publish them, reviewing requests for user IDs for the forum, and monitoring the forum for inappropriate posts. There are other web site operators that perform the same due diligence to prevent situations like this. The problem is not all web site operators practice due diligence. Because they are not legally obligated to monitor third-party content on their site, they don't have to spend the time reviewing the published material. As a result, situations like Mr. Hollis's occur.


• My concern is the double standard regarding how published media is treated. According to Section 230, Ms. Joseph is not responsible for what someone posts about others because it was published on the Internet. If Ms. Joseph was a publisher of print media (a newspaper or a magazine), and if the same information about Mr. Hollis was published in the print media, she is liable for what was published, and she can be sued for libel.

Summary
If the case is found in Mr. Hollis's favor, this could cause a review of the Section 230. If Section 230 is revised, it will make web site operators more aware of what gets published on their web site. While, in general, I think that Section 230 does need to be revised, the only concern that I have is that it could trigger frivolous lawsuits because someone didn't like the opinion that someone else published.

Section 508 - it won't get you out of the military.

If you work on IT projects that has the federal government as its customer, or if you would like the government to be a future IT customer, then it's imperative that you know what Section 508 is. Even if you don't work on government projects, it's a good thing to understand.

What is Section 508?
In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act to require Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities. According to the official web site on Section 508:
Section 508 was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, to make available new opportunities for people with disabilities, and to encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. ‘ 794d), agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others.

What are some examples of Section 508?
Anything that will grant disabled users more access to IT products. Some examples of Section 508 implementation include:

• Text-to-speech for deaf users


• Braille for blind users


• Reduced use of color and flashing graphics for colorblind users

Section 508 Compliance
For various standards and compliance for information technology products (hardware, software, documentation), visit the Electronic and Information Technology (Section 508) Homepage

You can also view the Accessibility Forum, which supplies tools and gives tips on making web sites Section 508 compliant.