Mediaboss Marketing

In August, The American Genius reported that Dominos Pizza had petitioned the Supreme Court to hear a case it had lost in the Ninth Circuit Court, in which the court ruled that the pizza chain was required to improve the accessibility on their website to blind and visually impaired users.

Last month, SCOTUS declined to hear the case, maintaining the precedent that the standards set forth by the American Disabilities Act (ADA) apply not only to brick-and-mortar business locations, but also to websites.

The decision was a major win for disability rights advocates, who rightly pointed out that in the modern, internet-based age, being unable to access the same websites and apps that sighted people use would be a major impediment for people who are blind or visually impaired. Said Christopher Danielson of the National Federation of the Blind, If businesses are allowed to say, We do not have to make our websites accessible to blind people, that would be shutting blind people out of the economy in the 21st century.

Although legislators have yet to set legal standards for website accessibility, the Dominos case makes it clear that its time for businesses to start strategizing about making their websites accessible to all users.

Many companies worry that revamping websites for accessibility will be too costly, too difficult, or just too confusing given the lack of legal standards. However, some forward-thinking companies are going out of their way to not only make their websites more accessible, but to create design tools that could help simplify the process for other designers.

A great example is Stripe.

If you have an online business, you may already be using Stripe to receive payments. Designers Daryl Koopersmith and Wilson Miner take to the Stripe blog to detail their quest to find the perfect and most accessible color palette for Stripe products and sites.

Color plays into accessibility for visually impaired users because certain color contrasts are easier to see than others. But making Stripe more accessible wasnt as simple as just picking paint swatches. Stripe wanted to increase accessibility while also staying true to the colors already associated with their brand.

Our perception of color is quite subjective; we often instinctively have strong opinions about which colors go well together and which clash. To make matters even more complicated, existing color models can be confusing because there is often a difference between how a computer mathematically categorizes a color and how our eyes perceive them.

Koopersmith and Miner give the example that if the human eye compares a blue and a yellow that have the same mathematical lightness, we will still perceive the yellow as the lighter color.

To achieve their goal, Koopersmith and Miner created new software that would adjust colors based on human perception and would generate real-time feedback about accessibility. In this way, the designers were able to adjust Stripes pre-existing brand colors to increase accessibility without losing the vibrancy and character of the original colors.

Not every company can afford to hire innovative designers like Koopersmith and Miner to create new tools every time there is an accessibility challenge. But Stripes project shows gives us reason to be optimistic that improving accessibility will become steadily more well accessible!

Disabilities rights advocates and designers can work synergistically to set standards for accessibility and create comprehensive tools to achieve those standards. In our highly visual age, its important to ensure that no one is left behind because of a visual impairment.

Here is the original post:
Startup pays $10K for people to leave The Bay - The American Genius

SINGAPORE: Singaporeans do not have happy recent memories of the Rizal Memorial Stadium in downtown Manila.

I was there at the final game of the 2016 AFF Suzuki Cup where the national team lost to Indonesia and crashed out at the group stage.

As the players walked to the bus in the rain after the game, they passed a group of gleeful Indonesian journalists who said thank you, thank you.

BAD MEMORIES

Now it is the youngsters turn to go to the same Manila arena and face Indonesia on Thursday (Nov 28). Revenge will be pleasant but there are bigger issues at stake. Namely, the 2019 South East Asia (SEA) Games.

Singaporeans also do not have happy recent memories of this Under-22 (U22) tournament either, failing to get out of the group stage in the last two editions in 2017 and on home soil in 2015.

The SEA Games in general are a big deal and no more so than in football. Singapore has never won gold though it has three silvers earned during the 1980s when Fandi Ahmad was at the height of his considerable striking career.

FORMER LIONS

Now the legendary player is the coach of the Young Lions. He is going to need all of his experience to lead these cubs out of a six-team group and into the semi-finals.

A top two finish is needed but it is easier said than done, especially after a disappointing 0-0 draw with Laos in the opening game on Tuesday that earned just one point instead of the expected three.

Laos, coached by ex-Singapore player and coach V Sundramoorthy, proved too hard to break down.

Fandi's former team-mate was probably the only Singaporean who enjoyed the 90 minutes on Tuesday.

The next three games will determine who stays in the Philippines and who goes home. On Thursday, Singapore faces Indonesia in Manila, then Thailand and then Vietnam.

ADDING FIREPOWER

Coach Fandi has named what looks to be a decent squad. The tournament is reserved for Under-22 players but each team can name two over-age stars in the squad of 20.

The inclusion of Faris Ramli shows how seriously Singapore is taking the tournament. The 27-year-old, who has competed at three SEA Games in the past, was the Player of the Year in the 2019 Singapore Premier League, scoring 16 goals.

The boss also summoned his son Ikhsan Fandi from Norway where he plays for Raufoss IL. Negotiations were needed to persuade the Norwegians to release the star during their season.These two attacking players will be crucial in a team that has paid the price for a lack of firepower in the past two editions.

In a combined total of eight games, Singapore scored just nine goals. Myanmar managed 26 in as many games.

Singapore is usually organised at the back - the addition of Tajeli Salamat as an over-age defender adds experience - but much depends on their forwards.

KEEPING THE CUBS TOGETHER

Also adding to the cohesion is the fact that 12 out of the 20 in the squad play for the Garena Young Lions, also the name of a developmental team that plays in the Singapore Premier League, Singapore s domestic club competition.

The thinking goes that exposing young players to regular competitive games enables them to grow together - though others say that as they lose more than they win, confidence can be damaged.

This transition from club to country is helped by the fact that the Garena Young Lions are also coached by Fandi. The bulk of the squad in Manila thus knows him well and vice versa.

With the addition of lengthy preparations, this experience should stand Singapore in good stead.

The training camps, friendlies and tournaments throughout the year were part of the preparations leading up to the SEA Games, said Fandi. All the coaches and backroom staff have worked hard to ensure that the team is mentally, physically and tactically prepared."

TOUGH COMPETITION AHEAD

Yet, as the match with Laos showed, the best-laid plans often do not survive first contact with the enemy. Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam will provide tough opposition though they are all capable of taking points off each other.

Despite having never won gold, Vietnam is the number one ranked team in Southeast Asia at the moment and reached the final of the 2018 Asian U23 championships.

Senior stars such as Nguyen Quang Hai are being chased by European clubs while Doan Van Hau is already in the Netherlands with Heerenveen. The pair are part of the Vietnamese team in the Philippines.

This talented Vietnam team, with a new level of fitness and mentality instilled by South Korean coach and former player Park Hang-seo, see the SEA Games as not just important in its own right but as vital preparation for Januarys Asian Under-23 Championships.

That tournament, hosted by Thailand, provides entry to the 2020 Tokyo Olympics for the top three teams.

As hosts, Thailand are also desperate to qualify for the Olympics and also see the SEA Games as crucial. Not only that, the War Elephants are perennial favourites having won 14 out of the last 19 tournaments.

Thailands opening game loss to Indonesia could be seen as a positive and negative for Singapore. It shows that Thailand can be beaten but means they will be even more desperate to defeat Singapore.

It also shows that Indonesia are a force to be reckoned with and have two very talented forward players in Poland-based Egy Maulana as well as Saddil Ramdani.

The game with Indonesia is vital. Win that and Singapore has a platform to move to the last four as well as the confidence.

Lose - especially after the Laos draw - and it will already be mission almost impossible and another disappointing trip home from the Philippines.

John Duerden has lived in Asia for 20 years and covers the regions sporting scene. He is the author of threebooks including Lions & Tigers - The History of Football in Singapore and Malaysia (2017).

Visit link:
Commentary: Is it mission impossible for Young Lions at the SEA Games? - CNA

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Visit link:
Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica

Learn when the government can invade your privacy to hunt for evidence of a crime.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search-and-seizure law. This article covers basic issues you should know, beginning with an overview of the Fourth Amendment itself.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The search-and-seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.

The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of you, your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:

The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.

Courts generally use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:

For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has an expectation of privacy), and most peopleincluding judgeswould consider that expectation to be objectively reasonable. Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom would be considered a "search" and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.

On the other hand, if an officer stops a car and, when talking to the driver, happens to notice a weapon on the passenger seat, there's been no search under the Fourth Amendment. That's because, even if the driver somehow considered the passenger seat to be a private place, society isn't willing to extend privacy protections to that particular location. In other words, there's no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the gun because it was in plain view.

A good example of how this works comes from a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger's head. The Court held that the physical probing by the police of the bag's exterior for evidence of contraband constituted a search subject to Fourth Amendment limitations. (Bond v. U.S., 529 U.S. 334 (2000).)

The exclusionary rule. If, upon review, a court finds that an unreasonable search occurred, any evidence seized as a result of it cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution. This principle, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961, has come to be known as the exclusionary rule.

To this day, many commentators criticize the exclusionary rule on the ground that it unfairly "lets the criminal go free because the constable has erred." But the rule's supporters argue that excluding illegally seized evidence is necessary to deter police from conducting illegal searches. According to this deterrence argument, the police are less likely to conduct improper searches if the resulting evidence can't be used to convict the defendant. (There are, however, exceptions to the exclusionary rulefor one, see Police Searches and the Good Faith Exception.)

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Not only is evidence that's the product of an illegal search generally inadmissible in court, but so too is additional evidence that derived from the initial evidence. This principle is colorfully known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The "tree" is the evidence that the police illegally seize in the first place; the "fruit" is the second-generation product of the illegally seized evidence. Both tree and fruit are typically inadmissible at trial. (For more, see Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.)

Example: Improperly Seized Evidence

Officer Wiley arrests Hy Lowe for selling phony telephone cards. A judge rules that Officer Wiley illegally entered Lowe's home and improperly seized a map showing the location where Lowe hid the phone cards. Officer Wiley then found the phone cards in that location. Because Officer Wiley obtained the map through an illegal search, it and the phone cards are inadmissible. The phone cards are the fruit of the unlawful search.

Not always end of story. Some defendants believe that if they can show that a search was illegal, the case must be dismissed. Not true. If a prosecutor has enough other evidence to prove the defendant guilty, the case can continue. Also, the illegally-seized evidence can generally be considered by a judge when deciding on an appropriate sentence following conviction and admitted in civil and deportation cases. In some circumstances, a prosecutor can use such evidence to impeach (attack the credibility of) a defendant who testifies at trial.

To learn more about search-and-seizure law, get The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by Paul Bergman (Nolo). If you might need to talk to a criminal defense attorney, or want to know how the law may differ slightly in your state, you can turn to Nolo's trusted Lawyer Directory to find a lawyer near you.

Continue reading here:
When Can't the Fourth Amendment Protect My Privacy? | Nolo

The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses against unreasonable searches, and is an important right. Americans want to feel safe in their homes and do not want police constantly involved in their daily lives. On the other hand, Americans want to be safe from crime and terrorism. There is a difficult and controversial balance between these two perspectives, and there has been since this nation was founded. Let us look at three important cases dealing with Fourth Amendment issues.

In the 1961 case, Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court decided that any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment would be deemed inadmissible in court. Dollree Mapp was suspected of hiding a bombing suspect. Police knocked at her door, but she did not answer. Eventually, police forced their way in. Once they breached the doorway, Dollree demanded to see their warrant. She placed the warrant in her bra. The warrant was destroyed when the police tried to retrieve it. The police found pornography in the home (a crime in that archaic time) and charged Mapp with possession of lewd material. The prosecuting attorney did not have the warrant to present as evidence. Ohio convicted Mapp, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and ruled any evidence gathered in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible.

The 1967 Supreme Court case Katz v. United States is another major fourth amendment case. Charles Katz sent illegal betting wagers through a public pay phone booth. The FBI recorded his calls, and the recordings were used as evidence against him in trial. The Supreme Court decided that this evidence was inadmissible as Katz believed he has a reasonable expectation of privacy when making the phone calls. The Supreme Court dictated that any conversation made with a reasonable expectation of privacy is protected under the Fourth Amendment and that wiretapping constitutes a search.

Terry v. Ohio is a 1968 Supreme Court decision upholding stop-and-frisk policing. John Terry and two other men were walking around suspiciously in front of a building. A police officer approached them and found a pistol in Terrys pocket. He ordered the three men inside the building and patted them down. He found a weapon on one of the other men. Terry and his armed friend were charged with carrying concealed weapons. The Supreme Court ruled that Terrys search was reasonable and justified by the need to protect the police and others nearby. Since this case, there have been many other cases addressing the issue of when it is okay for an officer to search a suspect.

The Fourth Amendment is an important protection. If you feel your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, you need effective legal representation. Many cases hinge on Fourth Amendment rights being handled properly. The police have a duty to behave by the standards set by the constitution, but sometimes they do not always follow the rules. The De Bruin Law Firm has experience helping people in difficult situations. Let us help you with your case, contact Greenville Defense Attorney Aaron De Bruin about your case today.

View original post here:
Landmark Fourth Amendment Cases | Criminal Defense Attorney