Daniel Greene

Tag: opinion

Opinion, provocative, editorial, perspective, call-to-action, soapbox, pet peeves, prescriptive…

  • Closed-Captioning on Google Video

    This is great news for deaf and hard of hearing people — and, I think, for hearing people, too! While the world of Internet video has been hurtling forward, deaf people have been thrown backward to a time when television was not captioned. Why? Because almost none of the video on the Internet is subtitled or even closed-captioned! Almost none of the content on YouTube, Google, or any of the news sites is captioned. And you know all those movies and television shows the iTunes Music Store started selling recently? Not captioned. Yeppers. It’s like the old days all over again for deaf people.

    And what about for yourself, when you’re sitting at your cubicle at work and you want to watch some Internet video but can’t turn up the volume lest you disturb your neighbor? Yes, I bet my fellow “hearing” people would like captioning on Internet videos, too!

    Just think about how closed captioning — something originally created for deaf people — has changed your life. You now can watch multiple televisions in airports, bars, at the gym– all by reading the captions that were put there ostensibly for “the hearing impaired”! Think about all the words you’ve learned to spell, all the late nights you’ve been able to sit up and watch TV without disturbing your roommates or family. And what would life be like if we didn’t learn what the words were for all those sounds we took for granted, like the “mewling” of kittens, or the “tittering” of swallows?

    I joined Google Video this evening, and made my first video. It took me about 45 minutes to caption a two-minute video; granted, it was my first attempt. I uploaded my video to Google, and I added the captions. After Google finishes processing my video, I will blog it here.

    Thanks to Jared Evans for posting the entry Google Video Has Captions Now!!!

  • More about Transparency

    Below I quote from this Wikipedia entry about Telecommunications Relay Service:

    As much of the tele-relay system, particularly IP-Relay, is open for public use, it is possible for anyone with the proper equipment to place calls. This includes people who are not members of the original intended user group (i.e., persons who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or speech-impaired). Some such users have noted its usefulness in making long-distance or local calls free of charge and without a telephone. The accessibility even to those who are not deaf, etc. has been defended by providers as a necessary evil. This is because the principle of “transparency” – the belief that the operator and the mechanics of relay should generally go as unnoticed as possible in the call – requires that Relay be as easy to use as a normal telephone, which does not require any kind of verification for hearing people to use. This decision has been defended by leaders in the deaf community, and generally retains strong support among speech and hearing-disabled users of the service.

    One of the “necessary evils” the above quotation refers to is the use of text relay services by Nigerian scam artists. Some text relay operators actually gave up their jobs in order to stop doing what made them sick and be free to break the story to the news. Here are two of those news stories that are linked to from the aforementioned Wikipedia entry:
    Con artists target phone system for deaf – Security – MSNBC.com and Overseas crooks abuse phone service for deaf | www.azstarnet.com ®

    I feel sorry for those relay operators who lost their jobs, but (more…)

  • abc7news.com: Deaf Community Targeted By Scam, Again

    The local Bay Area ABC News “I-Team” (investigative team) ran this news story on Brian Malzkuhn and Michael Johnson, two men — both college teachers who are deaf! — who ripped off deaf people in the process of being ripped off themselves by Nigerian scam artists. These men asked their deaf friends and colleagues for “emergency business loans” so they could come up with the money that the rapacious Nigerian scam artists were demanding in ever-increasing amounts.

    I am incensed to read this! This is a prime example of the sort of abuse that led me to decide a couple of weeks ago not to interpret any kind of VRS call — or live interpreted event — that I believe is a scam.

    I think the ideology that it is not up to interpreters to decide what is good for their clients interpreters are not responsible for the content of their interpretation is potentially damaging, especially in the realm of VRS. This belief in “transparency” (which I actually saw signed as “no skin off my back” or “I’m not responsible” in discussions about TRS CA‘s in the ’90s), along with the “mandate for equal telecommunications access” by the FCC, leads interpreters to feel that they are compelled to interpret any kind of call that comes in, regardless of content. Do you know what it feels like to interpret a call that you know is a scam? It is demoralizing to say the least. You might not be responsible for the scam you interpret, but it’s hard not to feel dirty about it.

    I think it is high time that interpreters started standing up for what they know is right and “reserve the right to refuse service” to scam artists!

    And deaf people, if you agree with this, please make your feelings known to the FCC.

    Thank you.

  • There Are No "Inalienable Rights"!

    The current code of ethics for ASL interpreters is the joint NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct. That document contains in its preface a section titled, “Philosophy,” which reads as follows:

    The American Deaf community represents a cultural and linguistic group having the inalienable right to full and equal communication and to participation in all aspects of society. Members of the American Deaf community have the right to informed choice and the highest quality interpreting services. Recognition of the communication rights of America’s women, men, and children who are deaf is the foundation of the tenets, principles, and behaviors set forth in this Code of Professional Conduct.

    As an RID-certified interpreter and transliterator, I must agree to uphold and follow this code of professional conduct — and I do — but there is a bit of nonsense in that paragraph that I cannot endorse, and that is the fallacy of “inalienable rights.”

    It is ironic that such a fallacy is promulgated under the heading “Philosophy.” Anyone familiar with philosophy knows that rights are social constructs: they are given by society and can be taken away by society. “Inalienable” means “cannot be taken away.” Well, the fact is that rights are given and rights are taken away.

    It may sound paternalistic to say so, but (more…)

  • I Don't Have to Interpret for Meanies

    Sometimes I have to remember to take care of myself and not interpret for people, organizations, or situations that I consider abusive.

    If I think a certain company is scamming people, then I don’t have to interpret for that company. If a certain client is abusive to me and/or everyone s/he communicates with, then I don’t have to interpret for that person. If I am so disturbed by what I am interpreting that I don’t feel I can remain impartial and interpret faithfully, then I have an ethical duty to abstain from interpreting.

    Most important — for the preservation of my own mental health — I have the right to refuse to interpret for anything or anyone that I conscienciously object to. And I will exercise that right!