Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Spam Webforms Leave Out The Blind
geekee writes "An article on CNET claims that a technique whereby a user enters a code word displayed in an image in order to register for a service such as an e-mail account discriminates against the blind. Advocacy groups for the blind are even hinting at lawsuits against companies using this practice. A proposed audio workaround for the blind still has problems since it has to be garbled to the point where most people can't understand it to prevent a computer from recognizing the letters. Brings up some interesting issues surrounding the Turing test."
Monitors discriminate against the blind. They should be banned.
What are the "interesting issues surrounding the Turing test?" I don't think generating a poor quality recording of some random word has anything to do with useful artificial intelligence.
Seriously. What problem are these methods hoping to solve?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The Turing test should hold true on audio. Anyone ever tried using voice recognition software/speech-to-text software? Even if it was a computer listening in with this software, there's a good chance that the computer is going to get it wrong anyway.
IAALS.
No matter what you do to improve conditions for a large group of people, some much smaller group will still be inconvenienced or have their level of inconvenience slightly raised. In this case, we have a very important tool used to fight spammers in their quest to sign up for email accounts automatically. Billions of pieces of spam float around the 'net every day. How many blind people are there?
This reminds me of new 25-cent public bathrooms tested by New York City awhile back. You paid 25 cents to go use it, and it cleaned itself and smelled great and so on. Then people in wheelchairs complained they couldn't use them (because they were too small), and were being discriminated against. So, the company made a larger version. Except now, you had bums popping in a quarter, and having a free room for the night. More lawsuits ensued.
When will it stop?
My ass. This is the opposite of the Turning Test, and has so little to do with it that it shouldn't have even been mentioned. Just some dumb ass reporter trying to appear erudite.
Hotmail's one has a link "click here if you can't see the image" which then proceeds to read you the letters via an audio file which you can then type in.
Although or blind and deaf, you're still out of luck.
Wall....Wall....Intruder's leg....Intruders stomache....Intruder's head
*BANG*
It's probably worth pointing out that the /. account signup employs just such a technique.
And yes, I can see how this can be viewed as discriminatory, but the problem of devising an alternative is far from trivial.
Jurisprudence Fetishist Gets Off On A Technicality --theonion.com
Some things just aren't meant to be used by the blind.
Yes, but that set of things would not logically include Hotmail, Yahoo! Instant Messaging, and Verisign's registration database, which are the specific websites that are listed in this article as using image-based anti-bot techniques...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
And let me just say I'm profoundly sorry about the subject line of this post.
--
Why do I get the feeling that when all is said and done, a handful of lawyers will be able to go out and buy yachts, but blind people won't be any better off?
So you are saying that blind people are not allowed to vote for the All Star Game (first site to came to mind when I read this). That doesn't seem very fair to me. Baseball is a great example of something that blind people can enjoy almost as much as a sighted person. Your analogy of a car is silly because you wouldn't expect a blind person to drive in the first place. You would expect them to surf the web, listen to baseball, and vote on the All Star game.
Now I understand that baseball is not life-threatening but it is just an example. I think you would feel differently if you or someone you loved was blind.
Huh, I thought this had already been solved? I was reading about this issue on CNN's similar story last week, and they mentioned the outcry from the blind and mute community over this issue. However, they also said Microsoft had already come up for a solution with regards to hotmail (M$'s free internet based e mail service) by simply not applying the test to the blind. WindowsXP checks to see if a Braille translator is hooked up to your computer, and relays this through your .NET passport to Hotmail. If it is, you don't have to go through that mess.
Sounds like a good solution to me! Besides, if they do this for the blind, and use that audio test thing instead, the deaf will be all over them.
Consensual sex is boring.
Hello, I am your seeing eye monkey from bonzai buddy, I can help you read the text off of the screen that you need to register for your e-mail account.
Would you like to.
1. have the selection recognized with ocr, and read to you.
2. send your personal information to us, along with the new e-mail account so we can send it to spammers.
3. Profit!@!@
(except in soviet russia where the OCR owns us)
Remember that you are unique, just like everybody else.
If you ever try to turn off images, you'll see that ALT tags are sadly lacking, making many sites impossible for blind to navigate...
I don't think it's bad will, but rather that seeing is such an integral part of the normal experience they just don't even think about it. I normally wouldn't.
If not image recognition, they need something to prevent mass registering bots... Hashcash perhaps, that should work even for the blind.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So what would you prefer to do as a solution?
Remove the test altogether and let spammers have their way with free email accounts? If anything, why not create an e-mail service just for the blind that requires some other type of verification that they can use, but will still stop spammers?
If we know the target language, then you could produce a challenge based on a sentence. Say something like
...] verb [location] [time]." ... as long as you've got a big enough dictionary that can fill in the blanks, generating these messages as a challenge should be a cinch. an encrypted string in the Subject (which is fairly dependably returned in the reply) could be used to identify the particular message, and the answer could be looked up
"Thirteen red small dogs went to the zoo."
What size were they? (to which the answer would be "small")
You could mix and match questions and adjectives to keep spammers on their toes. The only drawback is that this is only effective for as long as you have a bigger dictionary system than the spammers. Using a larger sentence or paragraph with more complexities should help.
"[count] [color] [size] [age] object [and [count] [color] [size] [age] [object]
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Using audio, ask the user a question that is hard for a computer to interpret.
What is the first vowel in your last name? (leave blank for none)
If you added all the digits in you phone number up what would be their sum?
I am sure some text to speech software could produce good text, and someone could parse the sentence, but if you randomized the questions enough it should deter most automated attacks.
Then again these type of questions may offend those who just can't figure out the answers.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
Has anyone here worked on any alternatives? The report indicates that the Microsoft sound-based alternative was totally non-functional. Is that even a worthwhile path to work on?
Perhaps some sort of text challenge/response scenario that would require an explicit understanding of the challenge part: "Take the second-to-last letter of each word from the below text, reverse the order and write them capitalized" . With a wide enough range of such challenges, spambots would be out of luck.
WindowsXP checks to see if a Braille translator is hooked up to your computer, and relays this through your .NET passport to Hotmail. If it is, you don't have to go through that mess.
And will be immediately unsolved as soon as a spammer purchases and hooks up a Braille translator to his computer.
OK... So I'm blind.. Make the website talk to me so I can find the "code word"
I'm deaf.... Now what?
How about that website doesn't get business from those who are handicapped (is that still the kosher PC term?)
I don't force sites that don't have SSL to use SSL so I can use them... I JUST DON'T USE THEM...
Everything isn't made to fit everyone..
My butcher isn't going to start a produce section for vegetarians
My barber isn't going to start a hair replacement facilty for bald people (not a bad business idea though)?
and My office isn't gonna start using Linux because I say so (had to throw that one in)
I don't believe any of these websites are "public services" so if they don't wish to cater to this specific demographic (is that more PC or less?) then they simply don't get their business. If my website sells tools that help those who are disabled use the web you'll damn well bet my website is able to be viewed by their machines. If I'm selling video game systems, I dunno but, probably not....
"A proposed audio workaround for the blind still has problems since it has to be garbled to the point where most people can't understand it to prevent a computer from recognizing the letters."
Can't you just ask a question, like:
how much is 2 + 2?
what number comes after 10?
type in a 4 letter word beginning with "k".
okay, the problem would be that each website will need to come with its own set of questions. but we can have few templates where you just substitute new parameters each time.
I am sure, no software is intelligent enough to crack all these questions. by the time, the software becomes intelligent enough to answer these questions, we can come up with something else. it is cat and mouse game except that mouse keeps winning.
Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. Some things just aren't meant to be used by the blind. What's next? Will they sue Ford or GM because the speedometer of car isn't audible?
This isn't anything to do with the blind at all, and never was - it's about lawyers smelling a way to use someone else's misfortune to make themselves a quick buck. So much easier to chase a blind man than an ambulance, see.
As an aside, if these so-called advocacy groups have a better solution, let's hear it. All they are saying is that they'll block one of the few solutions that does exist, which isn't very constructive. That is further evidence that they're only in it for the money.
Yeah, I read the article about the audio solution, but the article also says it doesn't work nearly as well, and it wasn't thought up by one of these lawyers anyway, but by their intended victims.
I was attempting to buy some concert tickets from a large, evil corporation recently. The letters were so contorted that I simply COULD NOT read it ... I got several friends' guesses on what the word was, and each opinion was different. If the problem is really so bad as to necessitate these word games, it might be time to try a different tactic.
For instance, couldn't you simply direct the user to perform a few simple tasks? (e.g. select the bubble with the picture of the fish next to it, then type the last name of the president of the united states in the second box from the left) I doubt AI would be able to cope with as system like this, especially if you had varying combinations of tests. If you had a variety of these tests, you could also make some that accomodated the disabled, too.
Think of it this way. These companies are giving away free e-mail service. Sure, there's pop-up ads and banners all over the place, but will the blind actually follow the ads/banners? No.
So basically, you want a company offering a free service to go out of their way, spend thousands of dollars and man-hours to create a system for the blind that won't benefit their company? Sure, it would be nice if humanity was that kind, but its not.
I sort of assumed there was such a thing all along. Something like those "pinpression" toys with all the parallel pins that you can push on and make an imprint of your hand, only driven by actuators. Why wouldn't this work?
(Hold on...after a little Googling, I found this instance of the exact thing I'm proposing. Go and buy it, blind people! And not just for anti-spam graphics; as with any new medium, just imagine the pr0n possibilities.)
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Oh yeah, porn sites discriminate against the blind too you know! Ever tried to get off on a mouse-over image desc?
Anti-spam webforms not only leave out the blind, but anyone who uses a non-graphical browser (like Lynx.) Similar issues abound regarding alt tags and graphics.
There are other challenge response systems that can be used in place of graphics. I think the only reason that graphics are being used is because the designers haven't given any real thought to users who don't use graphics. This is the same kind of mental blind spot that has people using javascript and flash on major sites.
I guess the blind community finally had enough - a lot of major sites apparently are not following the recommended accessibility guidelines set down by the W3. This is their version of the stick, to convince companies (and lazy designers/programmers) that ignoring them is a bad idea.
Try seeing things from their angle. This world is built for people who can see perfectly, hear perfectly, walk perfectly, and talk perfectly. This goes double for the technological world. There are more "imperfect" people out there than you think. Small little things which aren't the same in you are me which we take for granted which cause a great amount of difficulty for someone else because no one even thought to ask them about their condition or what they could do to make things easier for them.
To give you an example, this technical feature also discriminates against the color blind as well, and 10% of Americans are color blind in some fashion. 10% of americans. Not so insignificant any more huh?
Some great information on accessibility is located here, and you can probably find plenty of papers on accessibility on google, but if you need to go looking for them, you obviously aren't disabled enough to be able to look for them yourself.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
This is not discriminatory. And speaking of that, why does every group, sect, division, race, gender, species, think that anything that isn't designed with them in mind is discriminatory? There are simply too many types of people, environments, ethics, laws, and other variables for every system to work equally, or even adequately for every person.
If I were to provide a service (even a paying one) of some sort (for example a dog wash) but then require that any customer that wants to use my service and pay me for it must hop once on their left legg as a way of verifying that they are in fact a biped and not a snake in a human disguise (just go with it). . . this would clearly be discriminatory against people missing their left legg. But that doesn't mean that I am some how liable financially or legally! I just have a clumsy authentication system and need to improve it. If I don't, then the left legged people of my town will go somewhere else to get their dog washed.
robi
Just have an audio clip that asks a simple question. For example, what is 1+1?
The user can then just type in "two" and get access. Even if a bot could successfully translate the audio into text, it won't be answering the question (unless it defaults to "calc" when it translates).
P.S. I know...this would discriminate against the stupid, but so does everything else in our society. That's why I'm s-m-r-t!
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Is speech recognition so good now that sound would have to be played back from inside a '73 Pinto at the bottom of a swimming pool to keep a computer from parsing it?
Years ago, I told my Powermac 660AV "Computer, open window", and it shut down instead.
Granted, it was the only computer on the market that could do speech recognition thanks to a builtin DSP, and the integration with the Macintosh environment was superb- but it still would do the most amusing things.
Please help metamoderate.
If anybody is interested in finding out more about these spambot "turing tests", check out http://www.captcha.net/.
I seem to remember one of their earlier tests involved determining which word didn't belong in a particular phrase. They would give you something like "The girl went to the mall to buy a giraffe" and the answer would be "giraffe". This sort of test could be given either visually or aurally, and would require a lot of NLP resources to crack (would have to determine part of speech and some amount of the syntactic structure). This kind of system might be the answer.. theoretically it would be accessible to all english speakers, blind or deaf.
That said, I have mixed feelings about this lawsuit. On the one hand, I know where the blind people are coming from: they want an equal opportunity to use popular websites, just as everyone else (with a computer) is able to. On the other hand, being blind means you live under a different set of circumstances, so not everything is possible. It's just a fact of life when you're blind.
I think a lawsuit is the last thing that should occur; rather, people should focus on developing new technology that assists the blind and allows them to gain equal access to websites. There should be more standards that dictate accessibility, and the browsers should do all they can as well.
After all, the Internet is a text-based medium at its core.
Instead of using an audio file that says "A O P," use a file that says "The first letters of the words apple orange and pear."
as far as i know, a) sites like yahoo are private, much like the boy scouts, they can discriminate. they will get bad press for it, but oh well.
b) sites like yahoo could make a work around, you could call up for a username and password
c) the turing test only has to be passed once. i've never had to pass it a second time, once i'm a verified human being i'm verified... so why can't the blind have someone do it for them the first time? it would even be cheaper than hiring a lawyer, exspecially for a case they are going to loose.
Runnin' On Empty
The difference is, you can make your site work with ALL browsers by taking a little extra time to make sure your web site is HTML compliant.
The blind are asking companies to basically invent new technologies to appease them, and that's not realistic. We're all very sorry you can't see, but that's why it's called a disability. We already make every reasonable accomodation to suit the blind...maybe they should just find other websites that don't use this verification technique. Or get someone who can see to come over and help them for a minute...you only need to do it once per site.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Why not raise a few lawsuits against car manufacturers and city planners for not having audible instructions for the blind drivers to turn left, right, to brake or accelerate.
/. Anyway, back to the rant. Here are a few examples.
Come on people, nobody is deliberately trying to upset the blind, rather the embedded image schemes are there to stop the lowlife scum that automate the sign-up to free e-mail accounts just to spam from them. It's the same with the attempts to automate PayPal payments, etc. If these undesirables were dealt with, web services wouldn't have to resort to such technology in the first place.
Yes, it's awfully sad for the blind, but I'm sure on those infrequent occassions where they are subjected to such interfaces they could ask a friend or family member who can see to help, or perhaps they could use the phone, and if not, why not just give that company a miss and find another - "Vote with your wallets" and all that.
I doubt they've even tried to think up a real workable alternative.. oh no, it's easier to just litigate/screw some money out of honest companies, and what does that achieve? How about all the folk who were happily using service X sue the blind guy who sued service X into bankruptcy? It's pathetic, it really is.
I've not really thought this out very much, and hopefully someone will reply with a reasoned opposing view (great! let's hear it) rather than modding this a troll and that be it, but I'm just really irked at the way so many things these days are solved by clogging up the courts with needless litigation. I know I'm going off topic here but it's not like it doesn't happen every day on
e.g. The old 'beer vs women' sexist joke showed up on a company e-mail system, and a company gets sued for millions by some female employee, etc. Sticks and stones? Stop being so pathetic and just send back 'Cucumber vs men' or something.
Then there's the overweight fool that sues a fast food chain claiming he didn't know the food would make him fat and wins the case. "What do you mean if I consume more calories than I wear off I gain weight??" DUH! Eject that man from the courtroom!
Another well known one.. "Oh no that coffee you sold me, marked hot on the cup was hot! I spilt it on myself because I'm a dozy clot and burnt my little handypoo.. time to call my lawyer" and said person wins.
Nngh.. make love, not war (m'kay?). Maybe I should have stayed in bed.
--- Commission free trading & free stock up to $500 - use http://share.robinhood.com/kelvinp6
but when you are blind, you have to live with you disability..
While I am for making reasonable accomodations (That is what the Americans with Disabilies Act calls for) for disabled, spam is an incredible problem and I dont think we should give up our best efforts at fighting it just because a few blind people are unable to gain access. The greater good of society is served by removing spam than letting it all flow in to make the blind minority happy.
Find a way around it.. get a friend who can see to fill out the form for you.. or call up the company that runs the webform and I bet they'd be eager to do it for you too
Yahoo. MSN. insert-your-favourite-*free*-webmail-or-IM-service -here. All: FREE.
For crying out loud. How much money does a site have to spend to offer a FREE service? If someone wants to open up a hearing- or sight-impaired IM or webmail service that prevents spam from being delivered, then *go right ahead*. Why should the services mentioned (OK, most of them probably could afford to do something) be *forced* to do anything when they are offering stuff for free?
Some posts have stated that the impaired folks can choose to use services that manage to make it easier for them to exist on the Net and perform those types of activites. Why do we have to force anyone to do anything with their content when other folks can make choices of their own?
Other posts pointed out that some of us folks who are not using Idiotic Exploder are being discriminated aganist by various sights. Hello? Clue-impaired organizations? I *just* *don't* visit them. I chose a bank who'se web site was Mac, BSD and Linux friendly. I visit sites that actually render properly according to standards and I avoid Flash sites like the plague (mentioning Flash, are those sites next on the hit list? Quick everyone hide your Java applets, the Web Content Police are coming!)
Next thing we'll be told that we need to use only a certain select few color schemes and ensure our sites are spell-checked thoroughly before going live.
We're doomed, absolutely doomed, as a society.
Mind the gap...
Even more important than how blind people are inconvenienced, what about how mandatory image-recognition discriminates against people who use lynx?!?!
Right off the top of my head have a few wav files like:
'type in the second letter of the word blind'
'now type in the third letter of the word 'January'
What's so friggin hard about that? And no spammer's gonna have the technology to bust that for a few years.
BTW, I haven't tested it yet, but I bet I could write some pattern recognition code that would crack 90% of those anti-spam bitmaps. Do you think spammers would pay me for that?
The problem with these approaches are that they are broken by design. They *assume* that humans are better at sensory pattern recognition than machines, be it visual or audible. That's doomed to fail, not only because of people having varying degrees of senses, but because computers *invariably* get better and better senses.
So not only is this approach discriminatory, but a short-term measure that won't work in the long run.
What IS unique to humans, that machines have little or no chance to emulate and master in the forseeable future? Abstractions, perhaps? Arts? Or humour? Trivia that can't easily be answered by a machine would be one way to go.
To prove that you're human, answer this:
- In Alice in Wonderland, Alice fell down into a?
- Who's the boss of the strip of land south of Canada?
- To gain access to this site,
please identify,
the type of verse this text is.
- What would be an appropriate response to "Knock, knock"?
- What's the air speed velocity of a coconut-laden swallow?
Even better would be questions without fixed answers:
- What's your name spelled backwards?
- Who won yesterday's baseball match between the Mariners and the Mets?
- How many points did NASDAQ rise or fall yesterday?
- What's tomorrow's date? Please reply in the form "February 13, 2003"?
Block for a minute every time there's a wrong answer, since people are prone to error, but might accept waiting a minute more than a machine would. Add new questions every day, and drop off old ones before they can be fed into machines by humans.
And, most important, provide a human-to-human contact method as a fallback to prove your species, if everything else fails.
Regards,
--
*Art
Hmm, this brings up an interesting issue. Spam must really piss people off who use screen readers. Imagine having your screen reader trying to interpret "IfVSnh All To ols you need to ''b'uild your bi z we,bsite" or "Build your own casin0 and sportsb00k in just 10 minutes.". "Casin0" becomes "Cassin-Zero" and "sportsb00k" becomes "sportsba-zero-zero-kuh"
I was just reading Simson Garfinkel's column in MIT Technology Review's June 2003 edition where he points out that if computers can't figure it out, farm it off to people - they can.
:)
All these "obfuscated words/sounds" solutions are geared around a pair of concepts:
1. Spammers use computer automated systems to sign up for accounts.
2. These solutions are near impossible for computers to figure out.
It's all for nothing if the spammers set up sweat shop slave labor in countries where someone can be "hired" for US$0.50c per day. Just have them do it.
One of his best ones was the concept of having a "Free Porn" service where every (x) minutes you have to answer one of the obfuscated word thingos. Of course, it's one that's been generated by HotMail and then forwarded to the porn-viewer. Bang - don't even need a sweat shop - just rely on all the people who want free access to good porn on the 'net...
Garfinkel raises a really important issue here. All this crap just fails if you consider that there's a cheap human solution. He also notes that it's becoming *really* offensive to many to have to prove that they're a human...
Food for thought gang - all too often are technological barriers easily thwarted by cheap human solutions (if you've ever worked somewhere where labour is dirt cheap, the last thing you consider/promote is "reducing your head count" when selling computer systems
I left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down...
Although or blind and deaf, you're still out of luck.
Which brings up a point... what're the only other senses left? Well, touch, taste, and smell. Taste and smell are probably not well suited to the interpretation of data... but we already know that touch can be. Braille and raised lettering on important signs is generally considered one mark of an accessible building. There's braille terminals even, as anyone who'se seen the movie Sneakers knows.
So... why isn't there a tactile "braille" image renderer available? You've seen those toys with thousands of little small rods that you impress an object into, and the rods are displaced by it and on the other side you see (or feel!) an "image" of the object. Hook something like this up to an electromechanical device for lowering and raising the rods based on the intensity of a grayscaled image, and you've got a tactile image display. Accessibility problem solved. Even for blind/deaf folks.
Now, once the smell-o-vision is invented, we can take it futher...
Tweet, tweet.
Now you're discriminating against the stupid. You can't do that - too many government employees, particularly the elected variety, would be kept out.
Sorry. I'm not trying to troll here, although I know I'll be accused of being horribly insensitive. Accomodation can only go so far. It can only be reasonable. If you are blind, I am truly sorry--I really am--but you are going to face some inconveniences in your life. Having to read the picture of the little word to sign up for something online is one of those inconveniences. Ask someone who can see to read the damn word for you. It's not hard, it's really easy, and there's nothing to feel bad about. If there is a tradeoff between autonomy and pride, it is only imaginary. What if the blind person is all alone and there's nobody there to read the word? Pick up the phone and call the next door neighbor or a friend. If ya don't have a neighbor or any friends, you have bigger problems than not being able to sign up for a hotmail account.
As a side note, if they are going to sue someone, sue the spammers who make this picture-word system necessary.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
I wonder how newspapers get away with being so obviously biased against the blind...
And radio stations are completely leaving out the deaf audience.
Nike doesn't make shoes that fit people who have no legs.
The list goes on.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
For a good many visually impaired people, the whole point is that they can survive on their own as well as their visually active counterparts.
Why do I M2 everything negatively?
Anybody who cannot see a garbled word graphic also cannot see a banner ad. For one of the sites I'm working on, that's enough to make them persona non grata on that site...
That's kind of silly. Consider a vision-impaired user with a screen reader to render text (blind doesn't necessarily mean completely inable to see - they might use one of those screen utilities to blow a 64x64 chunk of the screen to fill a 20" monitor). Normal users might glance at a banner ad, and mostly ignore it. A person relying on a reader would have to sit through a text version of the ad being read. Which version of the ad is going to make a bigger impact? The one that's being ignored, or the one that is being read and listened to?
I think it was Bill Maher that said "why does everybody have to do everything?" I mean seriously. Sure, sucks to be blind, but for the love of god, rather than whining about discrimination, COME UP WITH A BETTER IDEA to prevent bots registering.
We'll ignore the obvious stupidity when it comes to filling forms in to start with. Surely blind people know SOMEONE who can see. It's not that hard to grab someone and say "can you type in what that says".
I'm colourblind. The fire service where I used to live discriminated against me where I live by not hiring me due to my defective colour receptors, someone call a lawyer.
I have a very rare form of colourblindness. My wife has to help with a lot of stuff involving colours (note that magic word, HELP), I failed to get into the air force due to this and my hearing... "Oh, someone call Lionel Hutz, I've been discriminated against..."
I feel for the blind, I really do. I've had some blind acquaintances, but this is just ridiculous.
Maybe I should sue someone because, by not being blind, I can't be a piano virtuoso like Stevie Wonder...
Well the lawyers are at it all websites should sue any blind/lynx visitors under the DMCA for circumventing ads and preventing the website from generatieng any revenue.
(weeee my first bad joke!)