On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 09:13:56PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:

Whereas they might well pass
Oysters around, because the amount on it is all that is at risk.

Not if you've got auto-topup enabled - as anyone will have who uses PAYG
frequently and doesn't enjoy pointless queueing. Admittedly the amount
at risk is limited to only a few quid a day, so still less than with a
CPC.

--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

Today's previously unreported paraphilia is tomorrow's Internet sensation

On 2014-09-19 11:40:02 +0000, David Cantrell said:

Not if you've got auto-topup enabled - as anyone will have who uses PAYG
frequently and doesn't enjoy pointless queueing. Admittedly the amount
at risk is limited to only a few quid a day, so still less than with a
CPC.

And there is no risk of anything else being purchased other than travel.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In message , at 12:40:02
on Fri, 19 Sep 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
Whereas they might well pass
Oysters around, because the amount on it is all that is at risk.

Not if you've got auto-topup enabled - as anyone will have who uses PAYG
frequently and doesn't enjoy pointless queueing.

There were some stats pointed at here about six months ago (when
discussing the imminent demise of the Barclay Onepulse) which I think
(but am willing to be corrected) indicated a very low takeup rate of
auto-topup. Something like 2%

Admittedly the amount at risk is limited to only a few quid a day, so
still less than with a CPC.

The thing about the risk of a card-borrower cranking up a huge CPC debt
is "how many coffees can they drink a day"?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:35:41 on Fri, 19
Sep 2014, Neil Williams remarked:
They weren't "online only", but "there stands before you a second
class accountholder"; and of course lots of places didn't accept them
if they couldn't do real-time authorisation (in particular they were
no use for buying railway tickets, which is precisely the sort of
transaction their holders might actually want a card, rather than cash, for).

ISTR it was a case of "if you don't do an online authorisation the
transaction is at retailer's risk".

And most retailers, even for things like travel tickets where the
marginal cost of supply is zero, said "no thanks".
--
Roland Perry

On 19/09/2014 09:12, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 09:00:05 on Fri, 19
Sep 2014, Neil Williams remarked:
OTOH the "online only" cards would have some other branding and, if
contactless, might be at vendor's risk.

I really don't understand why Visa Delta and Solo were abolished as
brands - they very clearly stated the differences with this type of card.

Visa Delta is now called Visa Debit - I assume you mean Visa Electron
(which hasn't actually been abolished, it's just very rare).


They weren't "online only", but "there stands before you a second class
accountholder"; and of course lots of places didn't accept them if they
couldn't do real-time authorisation (in particular they were no use for
buying railway tickets, which is precisely the sort of transaction their
holders might actually want a card, rather than cash, for).

Solo and Electron *were* online only (i.e. online authorisation only).
Neither has (had in the case of Solo which is defunct) raised numbers on
the card surface, so couldn't be used in old manual card imprint machines.

Electron and Solo started being accepted at (all?) railway station
ticket offices and TVMs in 2009.

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 04:23:17PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Paul Corfield remarked:
the key problem is avoiding fraud / misuse.
Yes, because everyone is nowadays guilty unless proved innocent. Chavs
rule.

It would be much more convenient for me if I could just travel whenever
the hell I wanted without being bothered by pesky ticket barriers and
the like and just tell TfL how much I owe them at the end of the year.
The key problem is not avoiding abuse or assuming everyone is guilty,
it's finding and striking the right balance between fraud (and knowing
that some people *are* guilty) and fraud prevention and ease of use and
features and ...

It's really easy to avoid all fraud and misuse if that's all you care
about.

--
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

Perl: the only language that makes Welsh look acceptable

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 09:29:29AM +0000, d wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:25:49 +0100
Neil Williams wrote:
Or it would perhaps more likely take you 20 quid into an unauthorised
overdraft.
Some accounts simply don't allow an overdraft - or to go beyond an agreed
limit, full stop.

Those accounts won't get contactless payment cards.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

"IMO, the primary historical significance of Unix is that it marks the
time in computer history where CPUs became so cheap that it was possible
to build an operating system without adult supervision."
-- Russ Holsclaw in a.f.c

In message , at 12:57:01 on Fri, 19 Sep
2014, Mizter T remarked:

Solo and Electron *were* online only (i.e. online authorisation only).

I took "online only" to mean that the cards could only be used for
online purchases. One scheme for this involves 'virtual cards' where the
number can only be used once - so fraudsters scraping the details can
never make a subsequent purchase with them.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:00:33
on Fri, 19 Sep 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 04:23:17PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Paul Corfield remarked:
the key problem is avoiding fraud / misuse.
Yes, because everyone is nowadays guilty unless proved innocent. Chavs
rule.

It would be much more convenient for me if I could just travel whenever
the hell I wanted without being bothered by pesky ticket barriers and
the like and just tell TfL how much I owe them at the end of the year.

That's an annual all-zones Travelcard I suppose?

The key problem is not avoiding abuse or assuming everyone is guilty,
it's finding and striking the right balance between fraud (and knowing
that some people *are* guilty) and fraud prevention and ease of use and
features and ...

It's really easy to avoid all fraud and misuse if that's all you care
about.

See Richmond, and the £40k Oyster-banker from Kent. No, avoiding all
fraud isn't easy. Sometimes, catching the more extreme instances of
fraud is possible.
--
Roland Perry

On 19/09/2014 13:09, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 12:57:01 on Fri, 19 Sep
2014, Mizter T remarked:

Solo and Electron *were* online only (i.e. online authorisation only).

I took "online only" to mean that the cards could only be used for
online purchases. One scheme for this involves 'virtual cards' where the
number can only be used once - so fraudsters scraping the details can
never make a subsequent purchase with them.

OK - yes confusingly in the payment card world, "online only" means
'online authorisation only', nowt to do with online (website) purchases.