In message , at 13:49:35 on Sun, 27
Feb 2011, Paul Terry remarked:
In message , Roland Perry
writes

I don't agree. For all we know the risk is being borne by TfL,

Are you really saying that if someone loses their pay-and-wave card and
it is picked up by someone who then uses it to buy, say, packets of
fags up to the £75 limit, that TfL will recompense the banks?

I don't believe it.

Don't be absurd. TfL are only taking the risk when the stolen card is
used to BUY TRAVEL!!

It seems from other reports that TfL will be blacklisting cards within
4hrs, which indicates to me it's a special scheme where TfL are indeed
taking the risk.

Even if they do, it would be trivially easy for a petty thief to clear
the balance on the card within a few minutes. Four hours would be far
too long.

How can a thief do ten fraudulently paid-for journeys in a few minutes
(and why would he want to)?

If he's using the card to buy packets of cigarettes, that's not TfL's
problem, or a new problem, or indeed anything to do with this thread.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:26:35 on Sun, 27 Feb
2011, tim.... remarked:

why would a child want to pay adult Oyster fares when they could buy a
paper
travelcard for less?

Part of the attraction of the scheme is not having to queue up to buy
tickets (and also not needing to know the system well enough, including
speaking English, to be able to decide which tickets to buy).

So you'd pay twice as much not to queue up, would you?

tim

In message , Roland Perry
writes

Don't be absurd. TfL are only taking the risk when the stolen card is
used to BUY TRAVEL!!

That's not what you said in your previous post. I made a point about the
general insecurity of contactless cards, which is the reason why the
transaction limit is low (in all countries, not just the UK).

You replied with "For all we know the risk is being borne by TfL"
(although I've seen no claim from them that they will bear the risk).

If he's using the card to buy packets of cigarettes, that's not TfL's
problem, or a new problem, or indeed anything to do with this thread.

It's the bank's problem, which is why I doubt that they will be prepared
to expose themselves to the risk of raising the limit.

I guess you're thinking that an exception could be made for TfL - I
don't know if that would be technically possible, as there are no
exceptions for anything at present. But even if it was possible, it
would be one heck of a job to persuade all the issuers of Visa,
MasterCard and AmEx credit and debit cards around the world to
reprogramme their systems and issue revised instructions to customers
for the sake of one small scheme in London which doesn't at the moment
look very attractive.
--
Paul Terry

In message , at 14:13:50 on Sun, 27 Feb
2011, tim.... remarked:

Part of the attraction of the scheme is not having to queue up to buy
tickets (and also not needing to know the system well enough, including
speaking English, to be able to decide which tickets to buy).

So you'd pay twice as much

Where's this "twice as much" come from?

not to queue up, would you?

Have you seen the queues at St Pancras?

Ah, here we are.. taken soon after it opened; the queues in the
foreground are for the machines, and in the mid-distance the zig-zag
queue for the windows. Not sure what's going on beyond the xmas tree.

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/stp-western-queue.jpg
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:13:50 on Sun, 27 Feb
2011, tim.... remarked:

Part of the attraction of the scheme is not having to queue up to buy
tickets (and also not needing to know the system well enough, including
speaking English, to be able to decide which tickets to buy).

So you'd pay twice as much

Where's this "twice as much" come from?

Capped oyster price for an adult: peak/off peak 8.00/6.60. Cash price for a
child travelcard 4.00/3.00.

not to queue up, would you?

Have you seen the queues at St Pancras?

It's not always like that

tim

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , Roland Perry
writes

Don't be absurd. TfL are only taking the risk when the stolen card is used
to BUY TRAVEL!!

That's not what you said in your previous post. I made a point about the
general insecurity of contactless cards, which is the reason why the
transaction limit is low (in all countries, not just the UK).

You replied with "For all we know the risk is being borne by TfL"
(although I've seen no claim from them that they will bear the risk).

If he's using the card to buy packets of cigarettes, that's not TfL's
problem, or a new problem, or indeed anything to do with this thread.

It's the bank's problem, which is why I doubt that they will be prepared
to expose themselves to the risk of raising the limit.

TfL have negotiated that the cards can be used for travel with no PIN
challenge.

Most people would guess that the banks would only agree to this if the
misuse risk transferred to TfL.

I guess you're thinking that an exception could be made for TfL - I don't
know if that would be technically possible, as there are no exceptions for
anything at present.

Actually that is exactly how it is for "normal" PIN verified transactions.
Those places (pay phones/car parks etc) that accept Chip and Pin cards but
don't challenge for the PIN, take the risk of misuse instead of the bank

tim

In message , at 15:29:29 on Sun, 27 Feb
2011, tim.... remarked:
Part of the attraction of the scheme is not having to queue up to buy
tickets (and also not needing to know the system well enough, including
speaking English, to be able to decide which tickets to buy).

So you'd pay twice as much

Where's this "twice as much" come from?

Capped oyster price for an adult: peak/off peak 8.00/6.60. Cash price for a
child travelcard 4.00/3.00.

So you are assuming a child with a paywave, deciding whether to use the
paywave (assuming there's no child discount version, which may be true)
or get a travelcard? A bit of a corner case, don't you think?

not to queue up, would you?

Have you seen the queues at St Pancras?

It's not always like that

It's often like that or worse. I'd hate to be there just after a
Eurostar has arrived (if I'm on such a train I'll be heading for the
Midland Mainline platforms, not the tube).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:57:15 on Sun, 27
Feb 2011, Paul Terry remarked:
In message , Roland Perry
writes

Don't be absurd. TfL are only taking the risk when the stolen card is
used to BUY TRAVEL!!

That's not what you said in your previous post. I made a point about
the general insecurity of contactless cards, which is the reason why
the transaction limit is low (in all countries, not just the UK).

You replied with "For all we know the risk is being borne by TfL"
(although I've seen no claim from them that they will bear the risk).

Oh please! Stop digging. It's completely obvious that the risk being
talked about was fraudulent travel purchases only.

If he's using the card to buy packets of cigarettes, that's not TfL's
problem, or a new problem, or indeed anything to do with this thread.

It's the bank's problem, which is why I doubt that they will be
prepared to expose themselves to the risk of raising the limit.

Sure, for tangible transactions like buying cigarettes.

But this is travel purchases where TfL would assume the risk.

For the rest, see Tim's posting.
--
Roland Perry

In message , tim....
writes

TfL have negotiated that the cards can be used for travel with no PIN
challenge.

Well, it depends how you read the statement "customers will never be
asked to enter a PIN at a busy station gate-line".

But I guess it's reasonable to assume that the last five words are
redundant, as I can't see TfL providing PIN entry pads on gates.

But this is the same press release which claims TfL "will make full use
of the payments industry's security systems" - when they are obviously
not making use of one of the key security element (the need to key-in a
PIN after every few transactions).

I wrote:

I guess you're thinking that an exception could be made for TfL - I don't
know if that would be technically possible, as there are no exceptions for
anything at present.

Actually that is exactly how it is for "normal" PIN verified transactions.
Those places (pay phones/car parks etc) that accept Chip and Pin cards but
don't challenge for the PIN, take the risk of misuse instead of the bank

But the risk is much less with the "customer not present" system for
chip-and-pin, as the card details are checked on the spot, and the
transaction refused if the card is recorded as stolen or lacking in
funds.

With "wave and pay", the transaction goes ahead, come what may, and the
thief gets away with his or her purchase.
--
Paul Terry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:29:29 on Sun, 27 Feb
2011, tim.... remarked:
Part of the attraction of the scheme is not having to queue up to buy
tickets (and also not needing to know the system well enough,
including
speaking English, to be able to decide which tickets to buy).

So you'd pay twice as much

Where's this "twice as much" come from?

Capped oyster price for an adult: peak/off peak 8.00/6.60. Cash price for
a
child travelcard 4.00/3.00.

So you are assuming a child with a paywave, deciding whether to use the
paywave (assuming there's no child discount version, which may be true) or
get a travelcard? A bit of a corner case, don't you think?

No. It's the exact question that I asked 6 posts ago

"why would a child want to pay adult Oyster fares when they could buy a
paper
travelcard for less?"

To which you replied (paraphrased) "to avoid queuing up"

not to queue up, would you?

Have you seen the queues at St Pancras?

It's not always like that

It's often like that or worse. I'd hate to be there just after a Eurostar
has arrived (if I'm on such a train I'll be heading for the Midland
Mainline platforms, not the tube).

If you want a travelcard, can you not buy it from the machines in the main
line station?

tim