- From: Jamal Mazrui <empower@smart.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:06:44 +0400
- To: <webwatch-l@teleport.com>, <gui-talk@nfbnet.org>
- CC: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
----- Forwarded Message Follows ----- From: Kelly Pierce <kelly@ripco.com> To: Jamal Mazrui <empower@smart.net>, David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net> cc: Jamie Fox <jfox@fenix2.dol-esa.gov>, Subject: Re: information access at chicago transit authority Using an unsecure means of sending credit card data might be an option if you have no other means of using a particular service. Some might be hysterical about the thought; however, these individuals are often less concerned when credit card data is shared on cellular or cordless telephones. The security of cellular telephones was highlighted last year when a Florida couple audio taped a politically sensitive conference call with leaders of the republican party. There is little evidence to show that using an unsecure means of providing a credit card number significantly increases fraud. Further, no one is advocating using e-mail or other unsecure methods to conduct these transactions. There are other options. One could fax the information to the agency or leave it on a dedicated voice mail line. We cannot stay stuck in either/or binary thinking. the CTA will not communicate with us on this issue, so our recourse was to go legal and discuss their obligations with federal officials that regulate them and their attorneys. We discovered that many Internet service providers nationally and in the Chicago area have not upgraded to Lynx 2.8. When they have, some have not implemented the security feature. yes, people can switch to Explorer. Many don't realize that is an unrealistic choice for blind persons living day to day on Social Security and a fixed income, where the entrance fee to use Windows is $800--the cost of a brand new Pentium computer. Most of our members in Chicago use Lynx more than any other browser. True browsers don't have legal rights, but the people with disabilities that use them do. the law is quite clear. The responsibility for access as effective as that for non-disabled persons is the responsibility of the transit agency. blind persons have no legal right to force internet service providers to implement secure web browsing. However, we do have the right to litigate the access of our local transit agency as it concerns Section 35.160 of title II. We must acknowledge that accessibility to secure web browsing is not as simple or as easy for blind persons as it is for non-disabled persons. We expect CTA to deal with that fact and provide options for us and for our federal officials to encourage the development of these options. Perhaps there could be more discussion on solutions. How could blind persons who are Lynx users purchase monthly passes and fare cards online without incurring significant expenses? kelly
Received on Wednesday, 25 November 1998 00:06:57 UTC