On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 11:43:40 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 01:23:54 on
Sat, 2 Nov 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:

So what about 60+ Oyster cards? These also don't need to be touched in and
out.

They are just a class of season ticket.

Going into extreme pedantry mode they are not a season ticket at all.

Yes they are. It's an "all London" [or whatever] free-of-charge season
ticket. It's certainly not PAYG.

They are a form of pass or permit which are different products so far
as the Oyster system is concerned.

In what way are they treated differently by the gates?

The gates treat them as Freedom passes.

The cards certainly have no concept of a "Purse" hence why PAYG cannot
be added to them unlike a normal issue Oyster card.

Although adding that functionality would be useful, if it was ever going
to be usable. Does the Freedom Card allow free use of the dangleway, for
example, or is there an extra fee payable.

No, I don't think any kind of electronic card or travelcard gives free
rides on the dangleway, but you do get a lower price if you have an
Oyster card, Freedom Pass, travelcard, etc.


I understand why you're making the comparison but a ticket is
something that is purchased whereas the 60+ Card is based on
entitlement for which no cash changes hands (other than possibly an
application fee for the first card - I haven't checked this).

No, tickets are issued. Who paid and why is completely separate from the
way such tickets are used in the field.

What tickets are issued?

On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 11:39:29 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message

, at 17:35:32 on Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Recliner
remarked:
Is it mind-games like those played by TfL, where they insist *everyone*
to touch in and out, just to make sure that the PAYG people they want to
charge are conditioned to touch in and out. Meanwhile the season ticket
holders are doing an irrelevant dance.

But TfL don't insist that everyone touch in and out, only Oyster users.

sigh this thread is about Oyster cards.

So what about 60+ Oyster cards? These also don't need to be touched in and
out.

They are just a class of season ticket.

What was that you said about TfL insisting that *everyone* touch in and
out?

True of Oyster cards, which is what the thread is about.

It turns out you meant only Oyster users,

Which is what the thread is about.

and then only the PayG subset of them.

No, the whole point is they try to insist *all* Oyster users touch in
and out, even the season ticket holders where it doesn't make any
difference (unless of course that season ticket holder later exits at a
station outside the validity of his season).

Which, of course, is exactly why season ticket holders are supposed to
touch in and out.

In message , at 12:01:38 on
Sat, 2 Nov 2013, Recliner remarked:
So what about 60+ Oyster cards? These also don't need to be touched in and
out.

They are just a class of season ticket.

Going into extreme pedantry mode they are not a season ticket at all.

Yes they are. It's an "all London" [or whatever] free-of-charge season
ticket. It's certainly not PAYG.

They are a form of pass or permit which are different products so far
as the Oyster system is concerned.

In what way are they treated differently by the gates?

The gates treat them as Freedom passes.

And in what way does that differ from being treated as a season?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:59:47 on
Sat, 2 Nov 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:
As usual you disagree with someone who actually specified the Oyster
system and who helped create all of the base data that works the
original UTS. I accept some things will have changed for Oyster but
not the fundamental aspects of how things are coded and recognised by
the network.

Partly because you've resolutely failed to explain what the actual
difference in treatment is.
--
Roland Perry

Paul Corfield wrote:

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:18:44 +0000, Cliff Frisby
wrote:

Richard wrote:

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:32:06 +0000, Cliff Frisby
wrote:

I don't know whether I am mis-remembering something, but I thought it
was obligatory for a bus operator to issue paper proof that you have
paid for the journey you are making, assuming you don't already have it.
The purpose, I always assumed, was that it protected the innocent
passenger against false accusations of fare-dodging.
[...]
A piece of plastic with the information buried in an embedded chip
and/or a remote computer under the sole control of the operator doesn't
provide any sort of objective evidence, as far as I can see.

I would argue that the proof of payment is still there, it's just in
the card and can be read with appropriate equipment.

Well, I think that really misses the point. Proof of payment does not
exist if the ability to reveal it depends on the integrity of the party
demanding the proof.

It's as though I bought something in a shop and, when asking for my
receipt to ensure there are no problem passing the security guard on the
exit, am told I don't need one because the shop has all the evidence it
needs to satisfy itself that I paid for the goods.

There's also a parallel with the move from signing credit card
authorisations to chip-and-pin.

We are being coerced into having to trust potential adversaries.

Any yet millions and millions of transactions are conducted daily in
London using Oyster with minimal problems. Are you seriously
suggesting that hundreds of miles of paper transaction slips should be
created for no real purpose? How do you deal with ticket gates on
railway stations? Remove them? fit printers and require people to
queue to receive their receipt before entry or exit?


I know it's not going to happen, but don't forget that we really did used to
operate in this fashion, so I think it's wrong for you to suggest that it
is utterly beyond the bounds of imagination. Travelling on public transport
without carrying objectively verifiable evidence of the right to do so is
still a recent innovation. Of course, it's not a problem until it's a
problem.

Like millions and millions of other people, I've never had a problem with
the police, but that hasn't stopped some distinguished figures suggest
recently that it might be advisable for me to try to record my verbal
transactions with them, in case of later dispute.

And it was the OP who asked:
"I dread to think what the conversation would
have been if an inspector got on - he wouldn't have believed me, would he?"
which is enough to suggest that the concern is valid.

It is not so hard to imagine the option of obtaining a paper acknowledgment
on request (e.g. tapping a button) being available. Nobody would be obliged
to do so (although it might create a perverse incentive to do so as soon as
TfL uses the fact of not having done so as affecting the burden of proof on
them).

The more practical question given the world we now live in is (as raised by
Roland Perry further down the thread): upon whom does the burden of proof
rest in the event of a dispute?

Richard wrote:

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:18:44 +0000, Cliff Frisby
wrote:

Richard wrote:

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:32:06 +0000, Cliff Frisby
wrote:

I don't know whether I am mis-remembering something, but I thought it
was obligatory for a bus operator to issue paper proof that you have
paid for the journey you are making, assuming you don't already have it.
The purpose, I always assumed, was that it protected the innocent
passenger against false accusations of fare-dodging.
[...]
A piece of plastic with the information buried in an embedded chip
and/or a remote computer under the sole control of the operator doesn't
provide any sort of objective evidence, as far as I can see.

I would argue that the proof of payment is still there, it's just in
the card and can be read with appropriate equipment.

Well, I think that really misses the point. Proof of payment does not
exist if the ability to reveal it depends on the integrity of the party
demanding the proof.

I really don't think it does. As I work in IT, and have done a small
amount of work on Oyster itself (although that got nowhere) I'd be
quite happy arguing my case with any revenue inspector. I can quite
understand that others wouldn't be so keen -- maybe that's you, or
maybe you have more of an ideological objection to this, which I also
respect.


I think I am just noting that in giving up our right to a 'receipt', we are
placing ourselves at an obvious disadvantage. I do travel using an Oyster,
but I admit to slightly resent the fact that, most of the time, I cannot
prove myself not to be fare dodging.

It's as though I bought something in a shop and, when asking for my
receipt to ensure there are no problem passing the security guard on the
exit, am told I don't need one because the shop has all the evidence it
needs to satisfy itself that I paid for the goods.

There's also a parallel with the move from signing credit card
authorisations to chip-and-pin.

Another parallel might be getting cash from a machine -- do you always
request a receipt? Or if the machine has a problem and doesn't give
you any cash but there's no message to indicate why... has your
account been debited?

I agree. Many years ago I had a perfectly normal ATM transaction in every
respect except that it didn't issue any money.

It is interesting to note that in recent cases of so-called 'phantom
withdrawal' (i.e. withdrawals that the customer claims not to have made,
and nor to have lost possession of the physical card) the regulator has
sided with the customer, and said that the bank can't simply assert that
the customer's card was used by invoking the integrity of *their*
systems -- systems which the customer has no control of. This approach
seems entirely fair to me. I hope it would equally apply to TfL.


We are being coerced into having to trust potential adversaries.

I like the pithiness of that statement, it brings to mind recent
revelations about how our governments and others are spying on us
routinely... I think it just depends upon where you place a transport
operator/authority on that "adversary" scale, and I don't, really.


I think I'm really using the term in the narrow sense that is used when
talking about trust in a technical sense, rather than to cast moral
aspersions. In a court of law, the prosecution and the defence barristers
are acknowledged to be adversaries, but I don't think it necessarily
implies that either side considers the other untrustworthy.

There is still the possibility that the adversary is acting honestly, but
has been led to the wrong conclusion by flaws in their system which they
are unaware of.

On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 13:07:24 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:01:38 on
Sat, 2 Nov 2013, Recliner remarked:
So what about 60+ Oyster cards? These also don't need to be touched in and
out.

They are just a class of season ticket.

Going into extreme pedantry mode they are not a season ticket at all.

Yes they are. It's an "all London" [or whatever] free-of-charge season
ticket. It's certainly not PAYG.

They are a form of pass or permit which are different products so far
as the Oyster system is concerned.

In what way are they treated differently by the gates?

The gates treat them as Freedom passes.

And in what way does that differ from being treated as a season?

Freedom Passes cannot be used on National Rail before a certain
time (09:30?) on weekdays.
--
Roger

In message , at 15:57:55 on
Sat, 2 Nov 2013, Roger remarked:
They are just a class of season ticket.

Going into extreme pedantry mode they are not a season ticket at all.

Yes they are. It's an "all London" [or whatever] free-of-charge season
ticket. It's certainly not PAYG.

They are a form of pass or permit which are different products so far
as the Oyster system is concerned.

In what way are they treated differently by the gates?

The gates treat them as Freedom passes.

And in what way does that differ from being treated as a season?

Freedom Passes cannot be used on National Rail before a certain
time (09:30?) on weekdays.

So it's a class (remember be using that word?) of season ticket which is
only valid after a certain time on some routes.

That's not a significant difference (compared for example with the
difference between a regular season and a one-off point to point ticket,
or a PAYG purse).

--
Roland Perry

Steve Lewis wrote:

If you are challenged as to whether you touched-in, refer them to the bus
CCTV, as one of the cameras (if functioning correctly) will have recorded
your attempt to touch-in.

That would be the pragmatic thing to do, but it doesn't really address the
fundamental issue, because the CCTV is just part of the adversary's system.
For a start, you cannot be sure the CCTV is operational.

What you need to do is to film it yourself.

Or get a receipt.

"Richard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:32:06 +0000, Cliff Frisby
wrote:

I don't know whether I am mis-remembering something, but I thought it was
obligatory for a bus operator to issue paper proof that you have paid for
the journey you are making, assuming you don't already have it. The
purpose, I always assumed, was that it protected the innocent passenger
against false accusations of fare-dodging.
[...]
A piece of plastic with the information buried in an embedded chip and/or
a
remote computer under the sole control of the operator doesn't provide any
sort of objective evidence, as far as I can see.

I would argue that the proof of payment is still there, it's just in
the card and can be read with appropriate equipment. I don't think
there's any suggestion that Oyster (or other) cards can appear to be
correctly validated as you get on the bus but then show no such
validation when interrogated later... the original post was about a
bus journey not appearing on the web site the next day (I think), and
in my experience it sometimes takes a day or two extra to show up.

Sorry I should have explained better

I don't get my journey history from the web site

I got it from a station doing a download of the info on the card so I am
certain that this journey wasn't registered on the card

tim