[access-uk] Re: Fw: Response from Lloyds TSB re chip & pin at home

Barry,

Isn't this what the banks believe that ACD will be for the time being? or 
until the fraudsters catch up with the technology at least? There are some 
on this list that will continue to cowtail to establishment and 'do what 
they're told' because there independent  judgement of living in a barrier 
free society is clouded.
Kind regards

Colin



Colin Fowler

Disability Consultant

Tel: 01582 483 283

Text/mobile: 07901 573 570

E mail:

col.fowler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

www.social-model.org.uk

disability@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barry Hill" <bbinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:45 AM
Subject: [access-uk] Re: Fw: Response from Lloyds TSB re chip & pin at home


> So, if the banks introduced an absolutely fool proof method of banking 
> that
> was impervious to any fraud, but it was not accessible for the blind, 
> would
> it be equal treatment if the bank said that we could carry on as we are 
> now?
>
> Barry
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Derek Hornby" <derek.hornby_uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:22 AM
> Subject: [access-uk] Re: Fw: Response from Lloyds TSB re chip & pin at 
> home
>
>
> Colin said
> "Obviously the principal of being treated at a disadvantage in
> respect to the security implications is beyond the simple comprehension of
> some on this list!"
>
> No,  some of us just know the meaning of the word "disadvantage"
>
> Those that cannot use the key pads at home are not being told they cannot
> access the same banking  services at those that can use the key pads.
> They are  simply being allowed to carry on accessing the services
> same way as  now. There is no lower standard of service, there is no
> disadvantage  to  the customer  because  the bank has  guaranteed to cover
> for fraud.
>
> If this case was in court for a DDA judgment the bank would win,
> because the bank can show  that the blind customers are *not*
> at  a greater  risk, compared to others.
> But not one blind person can show different.
> All that  some can show is that access to the  service is being offered
> in  a different way, but that's not illegal  under DDA.
>
>
> Regards,
> Derek
>
> e-mail: derek.hornby_uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
> ** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ** and in the Subject line type
> ** unsubscribe
> ** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
> ** immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
> ** or send a message, to
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
>
> ** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
> ** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ** and in the Subject line type
> ** unsubscribe
> ** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
> ** immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
> ** or send a message, to
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
>
> 


** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
** or send a message, to
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq

Other related posts: