Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

In message
, MIG
writes

So, in what circumstances, realistically, would the vast majority ever
get their £3 back?

When they reach the age of 60 and move to a Freedom pass?
--
Paul Terry

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:26:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be MIG
wrote this:-

The scheme may have a perfectly innocent
purpose, but the agenda of the authorities who approve and fund it may
be less innocent.

If the scheme has a perfectly innocent purpose then there is no need
for excessive data gathering. If there is excessive data gathering
then one might want to ask questions why.

For example, in a manual library there is only a record of what
books someone has borrowed when the ticket is in the card [1]. The
record is destroyed when the book is handed back and the ticket and
card separated. However, in a computerised library this method of
operation is not used, instead the record of what books were
borrowed by who is kept by the system permanently. It may be that
the local staff do not have access to screens which will show this
record, but it is still there. The US Library Association had run
ins with Mr Bush's mob about the use of these records for data
mining.

It may be that someone wishes this record to be kept. Perhaps they
can't remember which books they borrowed a few weeks ago. No
problem, they can ask for it to be turned on.

It was claimed in an FoI request that the Oyster data is anonymised
after 8 weeks. However, anyone reading the reply to that request
should note carefully the weasel words about law enforcement and
that sort of stuff. The story at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/16/uksecurity.terrorism
probably reveals an attempt to "legitimise" what the forces of
darkness do already.

The Home Office have recently been denying that their anti-muslim
extremist programme is a means of spying. Their denials don't
impress me, it does seem that some people have used it as a data
gathering opportunity no matter how loudly the Home Office try to
deny it.

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

Yes and the courts are too much an arm of government to throw out
illegally gathered "evidence" as they are likely to do in some other
places.



[1] unless someone goes to the trouble of writing down what tickets
are in what cards, which is a lot of effort.



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

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:38:42 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Neil
Williams wrote this:-

It is generally against the rules to refund cash for a transaction
paid for by credit card, and has been for some time.

Which rules?


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

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

In message
MIG wrote:

On 3 Feb, 10:52, Mizter T wrote:
On Feb 3, 10:22*am, MIG wrote:





On 3 Feb, 09:44, Mizter T wrote:

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

David Hansen wrote:
[snip]
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.

"There is almost no realistic opportunity to get the £3 back for the
vast majority" - not true. If it's never been topped up with a credit
card, and the balance is under a certain amount (sorry I forget the
figure), then one can surrender it at a Tube station and get the
deposit refunded (if the card's registered then AIUI this is still
possible, you just need to know the security phrase).

I know that one physically can do this, but when is anyone ever going
to be in that situation?

Every time you leave London


If you are leaving the country forever, it's probably not the first
thing on your mind, but it's about the only situation in which you
would do it.

Sorry that's nonsense.


It's unlikely that you'd ever be in a position where you would KNOW
that you would either

a) never visit London again

b) die before you needed it again

c) lose it before the next time you would use it

So, in what circumstances, realistically, would the vast majority ever
get their £3 back?

Realistically when they know they are unlikely to need it in the forseeable
future.

Out of 8 people I know who used oysters cards 4 still have them: 2 use then
every day to commute, my wife and I keep ours for our frequent trips to
London. The other four all surrendered their's when leaving the country. If
and when they return they will get new ones.

I'm currently trying to establish whether the Dutch Chipkart operates the
same way so that I can get one for use around Amsterdam and then retrieve my
deposit and any balance when I leave. And believe me it won't be the last
thing that occurrs to me when I get to Schipol.

--
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/

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

On Feb 3, 12:21*pm, David Hansen
wrote:

Which rules?

AIUI those of the credit card providers, to avoid people circumventing
the charges for cash advances (and probably regarding money laundering
regs as well).

Neil

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

In message

MIG wrote:

On 3 Feb, 10:48, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * *
* * MIG wrote:





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.

It is a deposit, you can get it back when you finish with the card. *If
you don't then that is your choice. *I have surrendered a few cards
already and got my deposit on them back.

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 ...

If you lose your umbrella then you'll have to pay for a new one. *Is the
cost of the umbrella a fine?

Of course not. It certainly isn't a deposit, which is what I was saying.
It's simply a price.

You said it was a fine for losing the card.



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).

Why did you think that? *Did you see it binned?

See other response.

Assumption on your part with no evidence, other than paranoia, to back it up.

--
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/

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

On 3 Feb, 11:30, Graeme wrote:
In message

* * * * * MIG wrote:





On 3 Feb, 10:48, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * *
* * MIG wrote:

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.

It is a deposit, you can get it back when you finish with the card. *If
you don't then that is your choice. *I have surrendered a few cards
already and got my deposit on them back.

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 ...

If you lose your umbrella then you'll have to pay for a new one. *Is the
cost of the umbrella a fine?

Of course not. *It certainly isn't a deposit, which is what I was saying.
It's simply a price.

You said it was a fine for losing the card.

No, I said it was the price. Then I made a "if it's a fine, it's for
losing the card" comment, the important point being the "losing" not
the "fine". You've insisted on picking up on that word, which I never
used in the way that a previous poster did.

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).

Why did you think that? *Did you see it binned?

See other response.

Assumption on your part with no evidence, other than paranoia, to back it up.

Paranoia? It was annoyance that I'd gone to the trouble to make sure
that someone got their card back, and was given the impression that
this wouldn't be achieved. I hope I was wrong.

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

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

They don't have to call it a refund, they could just give you
£3 for being lovely and returning it. It's only £3, not £30.


#Paul

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

In message
MIG wrote:

On 3 Feb, 11:30, Graeme wrote:
[snip]

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 ...

If you lose your umbrella then you'll have to pay for a new one. *Is
the cost of the umbrella a fine?

Of course not. *It certainly isn't a deposit, which is what I was
saying. It's simply a price.

You said it was a fine for losing the card.

No, I said it was the price. Then I made a "if it's a fine, it's for
losing the card" comment, the important point being the "losing" not the
"fine". You've insisted on picking up on that word, which I never used in
the way that a previous poster did.

You persisted in using the word which is why I picked up on it.

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).

Why did you think that? *Did you see it binned?

See other response.

Assumption on your part with no evidence, other than paranoia, to back it
up.

Paranoia? It was annoyance that I'd gone to the trouble to make sure
that someone got their card back, and was given the impression that
this wouldn't be achieved. I hope I was wrong.

The person you handed it too was probably not in a position to know what
would happen next.

--
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/

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:08:36 -0800 (PST) someone who may be MIG
wrote this:-

If you lose your umbrella then you'll have to pay for a new one. *Is the cost
of the umbrella a fine?

Of course not. It certainly isn't a deposit, which is what I was
saying. It's simply a price.

Your word is better than the one I used. I'll try and call it a
price in future. It certainly isn't a deposit.



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