From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton 
Subject: Re: Readers and privacy
Hi, Denise!
I concur with my wife, Masha.  I hope an additional comment or two will be
useful.
I think I understand what you think may be the danger of raising the
privacy issue too loudly.  When a blind friend and Federationist was
being considered for internships, the potential employers sometimes raised
concerns about confidentiality, especially when they were discussing who
should hire his readers.  We clearly don't want to leave room for the
notion that hiring a blind lawyer--or other professional--will somehow
detract from the professional relationship because that blind professional
happens to use a reader.  (If this is not what you're thinking of, or part
of it, please correct me.) 
I never had much patience with those arguments.  As far as I know, when I
practiced law, the people I hired or used as volunteers were under the
same obligation to protect a client's privacy as I was, whether they were
reading for me or doing a more typical job in a lawyer's office.  And, as
far as I was concerned, it made no difference whether I was on my own or
working for somebody else.  To have it otherwise would indeed have put me
on a lesser footing than my peers, making it only too understandable why
somebody wouldn't want a blind attorney.  Incidentally, I haven't
practiced law for a long time and haven't thought much about this business
for equally long.  Any attorney who sees the need to correct my notions
should feel free to do it.
Anyway, one way to think of the privacy issue is that it differs with the
circumstances.  It often is necessary for one or more of an attorney's
employees to know the things the attorney knows about the clients.  It is
not necessary for those staff members to know what the attorney does in
the voting booth, however; most often, they probably won't.  The privacy
issues themselves are somewhat different.
Clearly, we blind folks will need to use readers as long as the
print-reading gismos can't read handwriting or some kinds of print, unless
all written communications become electronic.  Even if all becomes right
in the world of access technology, I expect that there will be some people
who'd rather use readers anyway.  This is fine.  I'd like to live in a
world where I need no readers if I can, however.  This is in no way to
denegrate the excellent readers I've been lucky to have.  It's only to say
that the more I can do for myself the better off I am--which is why I use
Braille, and why I travel with a cane or guide dog.  
I regard this issue as part of the larger matter of when do we call upon
others to modify the world for our access or safety needs.  I think we've
generally been wise to presume against such modifications, but I also
think we've sometimes taken it too far or in the wrong direction.  We've
fought hard for Braille books, but, as far as I can tell, not very hard at
all for accessible ATMs or voting methods.  The right to a secret ballot
and the ability to take care of business privately at an ATM are as
important to blind people as to sighted people.  That there doubtless will
be some extra cost shouldn't matter, since that has never deterred us in
our battle for Braille.  I certainly don't know that the technology to
give us these aspects of privacy would be far enough along had we pushed
harder for it, but it probably would be further along than it now is.  I'm
heartened by our increasing focus on trying to make sure that new wonders
of technology don't become less and less usable by blind people.  I hope
this effort can be part of fine-tuning our presumtion against modifying
the world:  I like that presumption, but I think our implementation of it
could improve.
Well, I hadn't intend to broaden the issue you raised, but I don't think
it's off the track.  Thanks for considering what I've said.  Peace!
Al
---
---------------