On Feb 3, 8:51*am, Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:27:26 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
ticketyboo wrote this:-

Exactly what happens with Oyster: very many rarely used (including
mine) or never again used cards [1]. But, given the very large gap
between Oyster fares and cash fares, the incentive is there to get an
Oyster card when making only one visit to London. There really ought
to be an expiry date on these type of cards in a metropolitan area -
perhaps 3 years.

Why?

As I understand it the £3.00 fine for getting one covers the cost of
the card and provides a buffer against abuse.

Why this stupid insistence on using emotive words like 'fine' to describe a
simple deposit? *It just devalues any point you might have.

Agreed - it's a feature of David Hansen's writing style that makes
reading his posts rather trying and hectoring.

The cards cost money to produce. The £3 deposit/ charge for them
encourages people to reuse them, rather than bin them.

On Feb 3, 9:37*am, Neil Williams wrote:

On Feb 3, 9:28*am, David Hansen
wrote:

As I understand it the £3.00 fine for getting one covers the cost of
the card and provides a buffer against abuse.

It's not a fine. *It's effectively a purchase price for the card, and
not far off what the cards actually cost. *And what's more it's
refundable.

I hadn't thought of it until this thread comes up, but if masses of
inactive cards are having to be held on the database, it will just
grow continuously...

There certainly used to be a clause in the Oyster T&Cs which reserved
the right to deactivate cards if they hadn't been used for a certain
period - I think it was two years. I've just had a quick glance at the
TfL conditions of carriage and couldn't immediately find it, but
that's not to say it's not still there somewhere. Anyway, this power
hasn't been used (...yet).

On Feb 3, 7:27*am, ticketyboo wrote:

On Feb 2, 7:51*pm, Matthew Geier
wrote:

*Ezlink did once publish a study on the usage of their cards, which noted
that a larger than expected number of cards had been issued that simply
disappeared from the system. This was a source of concern as in the early
days they were subsidising the cost of the cards. Two of those missing
cards would have been those held by my wife and I. Only those reappear in
the system every 12 months or so as we transit their city. :-)

Exactly what happens with Oyster: very many rarely used (including
mine) or never again used cards [1]. But, given the very large gap
between Oyster fares and cash fares, the incentive is there to get an
Oyster card when making only one visit to London. There really ought
to be an expiry date on these type of cards in a metropolitan area -
perhaps 3 years. Maybe make them renewable until such time as the
scheme operator needs to replace them, but renewed only by an explicit
action by the card holder.

Why should there be an expiry date? Why does it matter? If the
database is engineered to be big, what's the problem?

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:33:12 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Neil
Williams wrote this:-

Perhaps people could be encouraged to return them if doing so was
easier? I don't see why a machine shouldn't be provided to take one
back and return the deposit and outstanding balance.

Neither do I.

According to a posting on a blog, so it must be right, at one time
TfL asserted that giving people their own money back was covered by
the Labour Party's money laundering claptrap. As a result they were
forced to gather personal information on those getting their own
money back, before they could do so. Hence the nonsense.

I am in two minds about this. The Labour Party is perfectly capable
of being that mad, on the other hand it may just have been an
example of convenient gold plating.

If the blog was right then they have now changed their position, but
not changed the way they operate. That implies that it was
convenient gold plating and TfL were after this personal data for
their own purposes.

There is perhaps an argument that people could steal cards and get
money from them. However, that is no different from stealing a
wallet. I am too old to be patronised by TfL making decisions for me
in this regard.

(Though it's not
totally simple, as I guess a refund of balance paid by credit card
must go back to the credit card).

Why?

Are the public so oppressed that they cannot decide this for
themselves?



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

In message
,
ticketyboo writes

Exactly what happens with Oyster: very many rarely used (including
mine) or never again used cards [1].

I find it useful (as do others I know) to keep a couple of Oyster cards
I no longer use to lend to visiting friends and relatives. I guess that
counts as "rarely used", but it really is useful.
--
Paul Terry

On Feb 3, 10:02*am, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:33:12 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Neil
Williams wrote this:-

Perhaps people could be encouraged to return them if doing so was
easier? *I don't see why a machine shouldn't be provided to take one
back and return the deposit and outstanding balance.

Neither do I.

According to a posting on a blog, so it must be right, at one time
TfL asserted that giving people their own money back was covered by
the Labour Party's money laundering claptrap. As a result they were
forced to gather personal information on those getting their own
money back, before they could do so. Hence the nonsense.

I am in two minds about this. The Labour Party is perfectly capable
of being that mad, on the other hand it may just have been an
example of convenient gold plating.

If the blog was right then they have now changed their position, but
not changed the way they operate. That implies that it was
convenient gold plating and TfL were after this personal data for
their own purposes.

There is perhaps an argument that people could steal cards and get
money from them. However, that is no different from stealing a
wallet. I am too old to be patronised by TfL making decisions for me
in this regard.

(Though it's not
totally simple, as I guess a refund of balance paid by credit card
must go back to the credit card).

Why?

Are the public so oppressed that they cannot decide this for
themselves?

As ever you're quite right. It's a bid to furnish MI5 with as many
personal details as they can get. Anyone questioning this logic is a
naive idiot. Anyone proffering alternative explanations is just making
excuses.

Next issue on which to pass the Hansen judgement please...

On 3 Feb, 09:44, Mizter T wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:51*am, Graeme wrote:





In message
* * * * * David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:27:26 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
ticketyboo wrote this:-

Exactly what happens with Oyster: very many rarely used (including
mine) or never again used cards [1]. But, given the very large gap
between Oyster fares and cash fares, the incentive is there to get an
Oyster card when making only one visit to London. There really ought
to be an expiry date on these type of cards in a metropolitan area -
perhaps 3 years.

Why?

As I understand it the £3.00 fine for getting one covers the cost of
the card and provides a buffer against abuse.

Why this stupid insistence on using emotive words like 'fine' to describe a
simple deposit? *It just devalues any point you might have.

Agreed - it's a feature of David Hansen's writing style that makes
reading his posts rather trying and hectoring.

The cards cost money to produce. The £3 deposit/ charge for them
encourages people to reuse them, rather than bin them.

"Fine" may be the wrong word, but "deposit" is at least as wrong.
"Price" would seem to cover it. There is almost no realistic
opportunity to get the £3 back for the vast majority, and I don't
suppose it's the first thing on relatives' minds when someone dies.

If it's a fine, it's a fine for losing the card. I had one, lost it,
had to buy another one. I don't expect to get the £3 back, but I may
pay another £3 when I lose this one ...

It's a bit annoying to know that if you did surrender one, it would be
binned anyway. I once found someone's registered Oyster and handed it
in, only for it to dawn on me that it was probably going to be binned
without the person who registered it being informed (at least not
before they bought another one).

In message
David Hansen wrote:

[snip]
(Though it's not
totally simple, as I guess a refund of balance paid by credit card
must go back to the credit card).

Why?


Because that is one of the conditions of using a credit card. If you don't
like it, pay cash.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On 3 Feb, 10:11, Mizter T wrote:
On Feb 3, 10:02*am, David Hansen
wrote:





On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:33:12 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Neil
Williams wrote this:-

Perhaps people could be encouraged to return them if doing so was
easier? *I don't see why a machine shouldn't be provided to take one
back and return the deposit and outstanding balance.

Neither do I.

According to a posting on a blog, so it must be right, at one time
TfL asserted that giving people their own money back was covered by
the Labour Party's money laundering claptrap. As a result they were
forced to gather personal information on those getting their own
money back, before they could do so. Hence the nonsense.

I am in two minds about this. The Labour Party is perfectly capable
of being that mad, on the other hand it may just have been an
example of convenient gold plating.

If the blog was right then they have now changed their position, but
not changed the way they operate. That implies that it was
convenient gold plating and TfL were after this personal data for
their own purposes.

There is perhaps an argument that people could steal cards and get
money from them. However, that is no different from stealing a
wallet. I am too old to be patronised by TfL making decisions for me
in this regard.

(Though it's not
totally simple, as I guess a refund of balance paid by credit card
must go back to the credit card).

Why?

Are the public so oppressed that they cannot decide this for
themselves?

As ever you're quite right. It's a bid to furnish MI5 with as many
personal details as they can get. Anyone questioning this logic is a
naive idiot. Anyone proffering alternative explanations is just making
excuses.

Next issue on which to pass the Hansen judgement please...-

Again, he is expressing it a bit strongly, but I suspect that any
scheme that contributes to the database state is more likely to get
approval and funding. The scheme may have a perfectly innocent
purpose, but the agenda of the authorities who approve and fund it may
be less innocent.

And ultimately, if data exists, it will be used.

On Feb 3, 11:02*am, David Hansen
wrote:

Are the public so oppressed that they cannot decide this for
themselves?

It is generally against the rules to refund cash for a transaction
paid for by credit card, and has been for some time. Doesn't stop
some shops doing it, but they aren't supposed to.

Neil