wrote:
But what's your problem with registration?
Is it a civil liberties thing, or is there a substantive objection?

Why is security not an issue for Mobile Phones?

Huh? Who knows? Who cares?
But what's your problem with registration?
Is it a civil liberties thing, or is there a substantive objection?
--

Andrew

"She plays the tuba.
It is the only instrument capable
of imitating a distress call."

On Nov 25, 8:21*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 25 Nov, 19:08, Tom Anderson wrote:





On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, MIG wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:31*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 08:08:28PM +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008, Stephen Osborn wrote:
But to get to a Tube station, as I live in SE London, I would have to
take an Overground train and so I would normally buy a one day
Travelcard at the train station. *To use my Oyster at the Tube station I
would either need to buy a train return ticket instead or use my Oyster
PAYG when I had a valid Travelcard. *Either of those would mean I was
paying extra for the privilege of switching on auto top-up.
Yes. Paying one pound extra. Once.

Two pounds and ninety pence actually.

No, one pound.

You set up auto top-up, and nominate the most convenient station outside
Z1 for pickup. You go to your local railway station or ticket seller and
buy a paper one-day travelcard. You travel to the nominated station using
it. You enter the system using your oyster card, activating auto top-up,
and travel to another station outside Z1. You leave the system, with your
auto top-up activated, and having paid a pound for the journey. You then
continue your day's travelling on the paper travelcard.

From the next day on, you use the oyster card.

The only extra cost over having auto top-up activated at a tube station is
the one pound cost of the tube trip.

That's the only explanation I can think of for how they could have
deployed a system with so many obvious design flaws.

Because *obviously* it wouldn't have been pushed through far too quickly
for mere political expediency!

We should have another utl meet, this time with a tinfoil hat making
workshop.

Can someone please just explain the logic of making a million people
solve a million individual problems, costing them a pound or whatever,
instead of TfL just solving one problem, by allowing top-up to be
activated at the ticket office?

This is, of course, a really good question, but it's one that i suspect
that nobody on this group can actually answer. Is there a technical reason
why it's hard to make ticket machines or ticket office equipment capable
of activating auto top-up? Something to do with the software in it, or the
kind of network connection it has?

I think it's about implementing the system once. You can only sign up
in one place (online) and you can only activate it in one place (tube
station gatelines). Once you start adding other combinations the
software and support issues become exponentially more complex. , It
was probably also built by reusing the same software mecahnisms that
already handled topping up online.


Is it not academic now, as you can buy an Oystercard online with auto-
topup enabled. As I understand it, you don't need to activate these
pre-enabled cards and the auto-top up works from the first time the
card is touched on any reader.

For existing cards, the Oyster website says that auto-topup can be
activated at any Underground, DLR, London Overground station or any
Tram stop.

In article , (Andrew
Heenan) wrote:

wrote:
But what's your problem with registration?
Is it a civil liberties thing, or is there a substantive objection?

Why is security not an issue for Mobile Phones?

Huh? Who knows? Who cares?
But what's your problem with registration?
Is it a civil liberties thing, or is there a substantive objection?

I don't see why TfL should know where I've been around London. Call that
Civil Liberties if you like. I think of it as a potential abuse of IT
myself. I work in IT.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Andrew
Heenan) wrote:

wrote
Mind you, the worst offenders wouldn't be able to travel to the
venue, let alone find it, as they'd be frightened of Big Brother
catching them crossing the borough line. And other members taking
their photo if they arrived.
Sounds like a bundle of fun !!
You didn't come to the last gathering, did you?

Tragically not.

Tragic for your sense of what happens at such occasions, that's for sure.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:

In article ,
(David of Broadway) wrote:

Why does the aforementioned someone need to top up online? Every
entry point to the UK where Oyster is accepted (Heathrow, London
City, and St. Pancras are all that come to mind) have Oyster top-up
facilities.

It was my brother's question. Maybe it's the queues at Heathrow.

I've never had more than one person in front of me in the Oyster queue
at Heathrow. It's usually the passport control queue that lasts an hour
or more. Although there was no queue on my last entry - in part,
presumably, because our jetbridge was broken, so we had to be bussed to
the terminal, which metered the flow. (And maybe whatever other flights
were scheduled to land around that time were late. I didn't bother to
check.)
--
David of Broadway

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:50:41 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 20:03:23 on Tue,
25 Nov 2008, Neil Williams remarked:
Interesting that there doesn't seem to be a sales outlet at Heathrow

Er, the ticket offices at the Tube stations?

Not according to the quoted web page.

All Tube ticket offices sell Oyster. Or isn't there a ticket office
at LHR?

Neil

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

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:55:51 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

Don't shout at me! I was agreeing with you, and trying to put Neil
right.

In a sense. I don't see why it would make any difference to a visitor
if they got one of these pre-loaded Visitor's Oyster cards or a normal
one at the ticket office. They both do the same thing.

Neil

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

wrote:
In article , (Andrew
Heenan) wrote:

wrote:
But what's your problem with registration?
Is it a civil liberties thing, or is there a substantive objection?

Why is security not an issue for Mobile Phones?

Huh? Who knows? Who cares?
But what's your problem with registration?
Is it a civil liberties thing, or is there a substantive objection?

I don't see why TfL should know where I've been around London. Call
that Civil Liberties if you like. I think of it as a potential abuse
of IT myself.

You are a customer of TfL. You use their service. After registration, they
record details of your use, a record which you can both access. Sounds like
a good use of IT to me. Do you also object to your bank holding details of
who has paid into your account and who has been paid by you?

I work in IT.

So what? So did I.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Nov 25, 5:31*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
That's the only explanation I can think of for how they could have
deployed a system with so many obvious design flaws.

Because *obviously* it wouldn't have been pushed through far too quickly
for mere political expediency!

We should have another utl meet, this time with a tinfoil hat making
workshop.

This. Also, is Oyster valid for travel in black helicopters?

[summary of Oyster threads:

A: "if I try and do something arcane and weird, Oyster is only
slightly easier and cheaper than paper tickets instead of
substantially easier and cheaper, therefore TfL are evil"

B: "No, because [sensible explanation]".

A: "Get lost, you're a Ken/Boris apologist and TfL are evil and I
should be allowed to do whatever I want whenever I want, waa waa waa"

B: "You're an idiot".

A: "Aha, personal abuse, you've lost the argument!".

[fx: sinister TfL secret police TfL track A down using his Oyster
details, and force him to ride from Stratford to Richmond on the
Overground whilst being charged for a fare via z1 FOREVER!!!]

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, Stephen Osborn wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008, Stephen Osborn wrote:

"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message
...
"Stephen Osborn" wrote:

Also it is rather daft that an Oyster can only have auto top-up
enabled when it used for a journey and not at a Tube ticket office.

Auto means auto. I don't see the problem.

The key word is 'enabled'. I have an Oyster that used to have a
Travelcard on it but now has PAYG. I would like to have auto top-up
but to *enable* auto top-up I have to use it for a journey at a Tube
station, indeed at a specified Tube station.

But to get to a Tube station, as I live in SE London, I would have to
take an Overground train and so I would normally buy a one day
Travelcard at the train station. To use my Oyster at the Tube station
I would either need to buy a train return ticket instead or use my
Oyster PAYG when I had a valid Travelcard. Either of those would mean
I was paying extra for the privilege of switching on auto top-up.

Yes. Paying one pound extra. Once.

If that's too much, let me know - i would be quite happy to pay it for
you.

Not a problem for me but it would be for some people. However the key
point is that it is a totally unnecessary obstacle.

An unnecessary but incredibly minor obstacle.

Essentially there are no Tube stations in SE London. So I don't think an
unnecessary obstacle that applies to c. ¼ of London's population is
incredibly minor.

It does not seem unreasonable to want to go up to a Tube ticket office
and ask for auto top-up to be switched on. In a well designed system
that would be possible at *any* Tube ticket office - so I would be able
to just pick one that does not have a queue when I am passing through.

Agreed. But that doesn't stop the complaint you're making being a
complete
non-issue.

So you agree that the system should be different to what it is now and
then say that wanting the system to be different to what it is now is a
non-issue. Those seem to be contradictory thoughts.

No, not at all. It would be an improvement if you could activate auto
top-up at a ticket machine or ticket office, but such a minor one that its
value is negligible, ie a non-issue.

You seem to be missing the meaning of the words you are using.

You say that the system would be better if auto top-up could be activated at
a ticket office. Therefore it is an issue, for potentially several million
people.

Then you say that it is so small that it is not an issue.

Therein lies the contradiction.

--
regards

Stephen