- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:35:22 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Icdri <icdri@icdri.org>
- cc: WAI IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
The following are personal thoughts, and do not represent the position of anyone but me (and even that depends on how well I write it...). And I am not a lawyer, nor a US citizen (although I have read the Digital Signatures Bill draft that was to be presented for signature by the president), so this is not expert advice, just interested opinion. It seems to me that this is a legal issue of how various laws work together. In my ideal world, a law on digital signatures would not say anything about accessibility requirements, only about the technical requirements that the signature was based on a true representation of what was being signed. I would expect the requirement that such a representation was accessible to be covered by another law, one that required that everything is accessible. In practise, I believe that this is how the US laws will work - the Digital signature bill covers the requirement that somebody knows what they are signing, and the Americans with Disabilities Act covers (more or less, but that is a seperate issue to me) the requirement that Americans with disabilities have access to the things they need to participate in society to the greatest extent possible, including the ability to enter into contracts. In fact I think that the digital signature law provides this. I presume there is contract law which invalidates contracts entered into where part of the contract was not known because it is printed in microtype, or relied on somebody not being colourblind, or whatever. I know that there is such law in Australia. So the three laws work together - the ADA (or local equivalent) requires that the contract is available to a person with a disability, the digital signature law requires that what is presented for signature is a true representation of the contract being entered into, and further contract law provides that if this was not the case then the contract is not binding (and specifies what to do next). Note also that this is about both statute law (bills passed by the government) and case law (precedents set when a court makes an actual decision, that is subsequently used as a guide in similar cases). I think that mixing the requirements together in the various bills makes it more confusing, although it is the job of the various players to make sure that they understand which different requirements apply to a particular situation and how they interact. In particular, it seems to me better that a law stating that contracts entered into and acknowledged by a digital signature (as well as an ink-on-paper signature) not specify broader requirements of Web accessibility, since that should be covered by law dealing specifically with accessibility. There is, of course, the possibility of getting a requirement into one law that effectively upgrades what is specified by other laws. Pragmatically it can be an easy path to getting things into statute, but it also opens up procedural nightmares by over-complicating the situation. In my limited understanding, this case does not provide a compelling reason to do so. (I apologise for the length of this posting. I also suspect that the topic is only tangentially relevant to this list, although it is interesting and is part of looking at what happens in the real world - which is where we ultimately have to solve the problems <grin/>) cheers Charles McCN On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Icdri wrote: All, I have been asked to forward this statement to the list for those who would be interested. Sincerely, Mike Burks All, The statement below concerns the New Digital Signature bill signed into law last Friday by President Clinton. It has the potential to raise significant barriers to both people with disabilities and those with alternate access devices. It should be noted that some analysts feel that in the near future most web access will occur using these types of devices. As the law stands now there is a very good chance that the Digital Divide between people with disabilities and electronic and information technology will widen considerably and in addition people using alternate access devices, to the Internet will be at risk as well. For further information on this issue please read the commentary by Cynthia Waddell to be found at: http://www.icdri.org/questions_about_electronic_signa.htm . Those organizations both US and International who wish to support this position should consider issuing a public statement, and those within the US might wish to contact their elected representatives in Congress. Please email your statements to: mailto:icdri@icdri.org and ICDRI will forward them to the Internet Society and will post them on their web site to be found at www.icdri.org. Please forward this message to whomever would be interested in this situation. Sincerely, Bob Cline Director of Technology www.icdri.org ICDRI in Support of ISOC/ISTF Position on Digital Signature Law The International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet is in full support of the statement below. Please note that the shortcomings of this law will also effect those using alternate Internet access devices such as cellular phones and PDAs. INTERNET SOCIETY (ISOC) AND INTERNET SOCIETAL TASK FORCE (ISTF) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Landmark U.S. Digital Signature Legislation Falls Short with Regard to Persons with Disabilities Washington, D.C.; July 3, 2000 - While praising passage of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (S761) by the U. S. Congress as a significant step forward in many areas, the Internet Societal Task Force (ISTF) and its parent organization, the Internet Society (ISOC), have expressed concern that the legislation does not adequately take into account the needs of persons with disabilities. The issues involved are not only limited to persons with disabilities, but may have an adverse impact on those people using alternate Internet access devices such as cell phones and Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs). Cynthia Waddell of the International Center for Disability Resources <http://www.icdri.org/> and a leading member of the ISTF states: "For a person with a visual disability to access an electronic contract, the document needs to be coded for accessible web design when it is created. It would do well to follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines posted by the W3C at <http://www.w3.org/WAI>." Persons with visual impairments are at a disadvantage if a contract is not properly encoded. In some cases, they may not be able to take advantage of the benefits of digital signatures as a means to enhance the conduct of business and commerce using the Internet. They also run the risk of entering into a legal and enforceable contract that they may not able to fully comprehend. More alarming, these consumers may not realize that they are unable to read portions of the contract. "We commend the U.S. Congress for this further recognition of, and support for, the importance of the Internet in conducting day to day business," said Don Heath, President and CEO of the Internet Society. He added, "However, if the Bill were to be amended to embrace accessible web design so that the widest audience of consumers could benefit from electronic contracts, it would result in a huge benefit for the disabled around the world, and put the U.S. in a clear leadership position in this area. Likewise, we hope that future laws in this venue address accessibility issues before they are passed." About ISOC/ISTF: The Internet Society (ISOC) <http://www.isoc.org> is a professional membership society with organizational and individual members in over 170 countries. It provides leadership in addressing issues that confront the future of the Internet, and is the organization home for the groups responsible for Internet infrastructure standards, including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). The Internet Society is dedicated to ensuring the open evolution, development and use of the Internet for the benefit of all peoples of the world, and to this end assumes a leadership role in developing and disseminating Internet policy on technical and societal issues worldwide, providing Internet education and training, and striving to represent the best interests of the Internet and its users. A network of Chapters in 60 countries (with many more in formation) supports the work of the global organization. The Internet Societal Task Force (ISTF) <http://www.istf.org> is an open organization of people who are committed to furthering the mission of the Internet Society (ISOC) and work to identify ways in which the Internet can be a positive force in social and economic dimensions. Contact: ISTF: Michael Burks Internet Societal Task Force 5212 Covington Bend Drive, Raleigh, NC 27613 USA Tel: +1 919 870 8788 Email: mburks952@worldnet.att.net ISOC: Lance Laack International Policy Coordinator Internet Society 11150 Sunset Hills Road Suite 100 Reston, VA 20190-5321 USA Tel: +1 703 326 9880 Fax: +1 703 326 9881 4, rue des Falaises CH-1205 Geneva Switzerland Tel: +41 22 807 1444 Fax: +41 22 807 1445 Email: lance@isoc.org # # # # # # # # # -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia
Received on Tuesday, 4 July 2000 02:35:26 UTC