Paul Corfield wrote:


I really don't think it is you know. There is simply too much data in
too technical a format for open ended access to the system to be of any
value whatsoever.

I'm not sure the two systems are especially comparable - the CC cameras
(which is what the police got in July 2007 when they asked for them to
be left on outside charging hours so they could use them as free ANPR
cameras) are obviously useful in directly tracking large lumps of
recognisable moving metal.

Oyster is a system comprising a lot of plastic cards moving about,
occasionally being flagged as being in a particular place, sometimes
under the name (if not the possession) of a particular individual,
sometimes not, sometimes reporting in real time (tubes, trains),
sometimes not (buses).

I'm not sure on that basis, that there's much to worry about, unless
they bring in compulsory registration, compulsory use, criminalisation
of people using someone else's card with permission, and compulsory
touch in/out on buses equipped with instant radio links to GCHQ, at
which point they become as intrusive and unnecessary as ID cards and I
go out and man barricades.

Currently they're a simple, easy, pleasant way of paying for public
transport - the major problem I hear aired outside the rarified UTL
atmosphere is that not every PT journey in London can take them yet.
SWT got a lot of stick locally when it looked like they were backsliding
on it, which is hardly the mark of a technology the shackles and annoys
people on a wide scale. SWT aren't going to price people off using
Oyster PAYG, after all, or if they are it's not in the public domain.

Tom

On Feb 4, 8:36*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:47:39 -0800 (PST), MIG





wrote:
On Feb 4, 5:43*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 4 Feb, 17:11, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
08:01:36 on Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Mizter T remarked:

I think the police have always had full access to the
Congestion Charging system and cameras right from the start.

There was a specific change to allow this. Probably after 7/7.

OK, I'll have to check that out then.

If the police were allowed to have live access to the database or to
do data-mining 'fishing trips' (to mix my analogies) then confidence
in the system would evaporate, there would be a massive uproar and
people would kick up a big fuss,

I think most people would probably believe the access is already taking
place, but in secret.

Perhaps they do, perhaps it is. Though if there is some kind of
secretive access to the database it would be being done by GCHQ as
opposed to the police, and they would basically only be interested in
'terrorists' and the like (the question would then be whether they'd
also be interested in tracking e.g. a militant organiser of mass
strikes - I'd think it unlikely). Oh, and spies I suppose. But I'd
think spies and indeed others 'up to (serious amounts of) no good'
would either simply not use Oyster or would otherwise use measures to
frustrate anyone attempting to track them via Oyster.

A follow on question is then the extent to which the infrastructure of
magnetic card tickets allows for tracking to take place. I'm not even
sure that individual magnetic tickets have their own unique serial
number (on the mag strip that is), which is basically what would be
required to track people using this system.

The functionality is very limited and rudimentary in that it would allow
a blacklisted ticket to be detected or stopped. *There is not the
infrastructure to track magnetic tickets at journey or trip level. *The
other thing to bear in mind would be the huge volume of individual
serial numbers being generated each day and the lack of reuse of many
tickets. The data management overhead would be considerable.

We did look at this but it would have meant completely changing the
insides of every ticket encoding device *in the country* (that was
capable of issuing tickets through to LUL) *so that they could cope with
low and high coercivity magnetics. High coercivity would be needed to
prevent accidental or deliberate erasing of the coding in the stripe.
You would then need a tracking and data system. *Although there were
benefits they were not substantial enough to give a solid business case.
Smartcards offered far more because of the data capacity and pricing and
product flexibility never mind ease of use and updating.

In the early 1990s I was assured that this was possible. *(Didn't I
post it somewhere?). *My annual had been grabbed at a barrier, and I
was told that it could be tracked to find a pattern of use and catch
someone if they were using it.

You were told wrong then. *The only "tickets" with individual numbers
were staff passes and Freedom Passes. *Ordinary tickets did not have
individual serial numbers.

What if they were BR ones, as this was (it was a BR person who told
me)?

He didn't make it clear that that made a difference, but it might. It
wasn't just some gripper, it was the Revenue Protection person in the
office at Cannon Street (who seemed to think he was a TV cop).

In message , at 19:56:09 on
Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Paul Corfield remarked:

I may have missed it but where is the statement that said that the 7/7
attackers used Oyster cards to travel on the system and that the data
was used to track them - either on pre-attack surveillance trips or on
the day itself?

You have imagined that scenario.

I have?

You asked if you'd "missed" something, and I replied that you hadn't, you'd
just imagined it.

I hadn't appreciated mind reading

You are David Hansen AICMFP.

was part of your skill portfolio.

Every new big terrorist "event" causes yet more emergency legislation
and more invasion of privacy (I won't start a debate about how justified
it is, but that's plainly what happens).

I think it will depend entirely on who is in power if such an event
happens. Without making political points I might like to imagine that
the politicians might just take pause and look at what is already on the
statute book before paying too much heed to the hysterical demands of a
tabloid press baron or two.

Such mission creep is nothing to do with what press barons demand.

We've had the Congestion Charging mission creep (July 07) and the Oyster
Card data is simply another box to tick.

I really don't think it is you know. There is simply too much data in
too technical a format for open ended access to the system to be of any
value whatsoever.

They can afford to spend a billion or two putting it into intelligible
form.
--
Roland Perry

Mizter T wrote:



No, I'm Andrew Gilligan, and so is my melting snowman.

I've never heard it called that before.

Tom

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 03:38:45PM -0000, Andrew Heenan wrote:

much slower buses (imagine the 38/73 congestion
at Angel every morning as drivers have to look at every ticket).

I assume that they wouldn't. Just like they don't have to look at every
single paper ticket now. They certainly never look at mine, because it
stays in my pocket. They never look at those that people buy at the
roadside ticket machines either, unless the passenger is an ignorant
tourist who insists on getting on at the front doors and showing the
driver the ticket.

Enforcement would be, just like today, done by bands of roving
inspectors.

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

" In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's ... programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt. "
--Blair P. Houghton

On 5 Feb, 12:02, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 03:38:45PM -0000, Andrew Heenan wrote:
* * * * * * * * * * * * much slower buses (imagine the 38/73 congestion
at Angel every morning as drivers have to look at every ticket).

I assume that they wouldn't. *Just like they don't have to look at every
single paper ticket now. *They certainly never look at mine, because it
stays in my pocket. *They never look at those that people buy at the
roadside ticket machines either, unless the passenger is an ignorant
tourist who insists on getting on at the front doors and showing the
driver the ticket.

Enforcement would be, just like today, done by bands of roving
inspectors.


I think you may be assuming wrong - you qthe beginning of Andrew's
paragraph read: "And, like the bendies, the advantages of Oyster would
only be visible after it was banned [...]". The future

On 5 Feb, 12:15, Mizter T wrote:

On 5 Feb, 12:02, David Cantrell wrote:

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 03:38:45PM -0000, Andrew Heenan wrote:
* * * * * * * * * * * * much slower buses (imagine the 38/73 congestion
at Angel every morning as drivers have to look at every ticket).

I assume that they wouldn't. *Just like they don't have to look at every
single paper ticket now. *They certainly never look at mine, because it
stays in my pocket. *They never look at those that people buy at the
roadside ticket machines either, unless the passenger is an ignorant
tourist who insists on getting on at the front doors and showing the
driver the ticket.

Enforcement would be, just like today, done by bands of roving
inspectors.

I think you may be assuming wrong - you qthe beginning of Andrew's
paragraph read: "And, like the bendies, the advantages of Oyster would
only be visible after it was banned [...]". The future


Argh, that's the nth time that I've managed to submit a post before
I'd finished composing it lately - butter finger-o-rama. Apologies -
let me start again...

I think you may be assuming wrong - you quoted the end of Andrew's
paragraph, teh beginning of which read: "And, like the bendies, the
advantages of Oyster would only be visible after it was banned [...]".

The more immediate future holds bendy buses being replaced by standard
double-deckers that operate under the conventional arrangement whereby
passengers enter via the front door and have their tickets checked as
they pass by the driver. I think the replacement double-deckers for
the 'Red Arrow' services (routes 507 and 521) are possibly to offer
either door boarding, but these are quite specialist routes (weekday
only linking central London termini).

A significant part of the objections to bendy buses is that they are
seen as 'free buses' - I think this objection is rather overblown, but
I won't get into that debate now - the point being the 'driver doesn't
check tickets' model of operation (as seen on bendy buses - we could
call it the 'open bus' model) looks as though it doesn't have much of
a future.

At least in the immediate future... how fare collection will work on
the new 'Boris buses' (the new Routemasters) is very unclear at the
moment. There are calls to bring back conductors, but given the very
high proportion of passengers these days who have pre-paid tickets
(whether Oyster PAYG, Travelcards or bus passes) it is perhaps
questionable whether that would be a of use of resources. That said,
if there were to be an open platform on the bus then conductors seem
to be necessary. But if there aren't conductors (and thus I suppose no
open platform) then the 'driver doesn't check tickets' model of
operation could be used on these buses. But that wouldn't quite mesh
with (a) Boris' desire to bring back conductors and (b) the criticism
that people might not pay their fares under the 'open bus' model, a
criticism that has certainly been espoused by Team Boris.

So I don't think your assumption that the 'open bus' model will
continue is necessarily that well grounded in how things are
developing.

A reasonably large entrance vestibule with parallel passways for oystercard
users and ticket customers and where people could wait to buy tickets from a
vending machine before passing on into the bus without involving the driver
would be the best answer.

JG.
"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On 5 Feb, 12:15, Mizter T wrote:

On 5 Feb, 12:02, David Cantrell wrote:

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 03:38:45PM -0000, Andrew Heenan wrote:
much slower buses (imagine the 38/73 congestion
at Angel every morning as drivers have to look at every ticket).

I assume that they wouldn't. Just like they don't have to look at every
single paper ticket now. They certainly never look at mine, because it
stays in my pocket. They never look at those that people buy at the
roadside ticket machines either, unless the passenger is an ignorant
tourist who insists on getting on at the front doors and showing the
driver the ticket.

Enforcement would be, just like today, done by bands of roving
inspectors.

I think you may be assuming wrong - you qthe beginning of Andrew's
paragraph read: "And, like the bendies, the advantages of Oyster would
only be visible after it was banned [...]". The future


Argh, that's the nth time that I've managed to submit a post before
I'd finished composing it lately - butter finger-o-rama. Apologies -
let me start again...

I think you may be assuming wrong - you quoted the end of Andrew's
paragraph, teh beginning of which read: "And, like the bendies, the
advantages of Oyster would only be visible after it was banned [...]".

The more immediate future holds bendy buses being replaced by standard
double-deckers that operate under the conventional arrangement whereby
passengers enter via the front door and have their tickets checked as
they pass by the driver. I think the replacement double-deckers for
the 'Red Arrow' services (routes 507 and 521) are possibly to offer
either door boarding, but these are quite specialist routes (weekday
only linking central London termini).

A significant part of the objections to bendy buses is that they are
seen as 'free buses' - I think this objection is rather overblown, but
I won't get into that debate now - the point being the 'driver doesn't
check tickets' model of operation (as seen on bendy buses - we could
call it the 'open bus' model) looks as though it doesn't have much of
a future.

At least in the immediate future... how fare collection will work on
the new 'Boris buses' (the new Routemasters) is very unclear at the
moment. There are calls to bring back conductors, but given the very
high proportion of passengers these days who have pre-paid tickets
(whether Oyster PAYG, Travelcards or bus passes) it is perhaps
questionable whether that would be a of use of resources. That said,
if there were to be an open platform on the bus then conductors seem
to be necessary. But if there aren't conductors (and thus I suppose no
open platform) then the 'driver doesn't check tickets' model of
operation could be used on these buses. But that wouldn't quite mesh
with (a) Boris' desire to bring back conductors and (b) the criticism
that people might not pay their fares under the 'open bus' model, a
criticism that has certainly been espoused by Team Boris.

So I don't think your assumption that the 'open bus' model will
continue is necessarily that well grounded in how things are
developing.

On Feb 5, 8:24*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:40:11 -0800 (PST), MIG

wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:36*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:47:39 -0800 (PST), MIG

In the early 1990s I was assured that this was possible. *(Didn't I
post it somewhere?). *My annual had been grabbed at a barrier, and I
was told that it could be tracked to find a pattern of use and catch
someone if they were using it.

You were told wrong then. *The only "tickets" with individual numbers
were staff passes and Freedom Passes. *Ordinary tickets did not have
individual serial numbers.

What if they were BR ones, as this was (it was a BR person who told
me)?

No difference. *It is only LUL that really uses the capability within
the magnetic stripe. *This includes the serial number for certain types
of ticket. *BR did not use their section of the stripe for anything
other than default values - I don't believe that has changed since TOCs
put in gates but I may well be wrong. *BR did not have the capability or
the inclination to independently encode serial numbers in tickets issued
via their standard range of ticket issuing machines - APTIS etc.

In those days I don't think it was likely to pass through any barriers
other than LU ones, so I assumed he was implying some kind of
cooperation with LU to catch a potential fraudster, and he seemed very
certain. (To clarify, it was an annual travelcard, purchased from a
BR station.)

But they did have different blanks for different kinds of travelcard
then. This would be specific Gold Card/annual ticket stock.


He didn't make it clear that that made a difference, but it might. *It
wasn't just some gripper, it was the Revenue Protection person in the
office at Cannon Street (who seemed to think he was a TV cop).

Well I guess that shows you can be relatively senior and clueless about
part of your job.
--
Paul C

In message , at 20:28:56 on
Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Paul Corfield remarked:
Such mission creep is nothing to do with what press barons demand.

Sorry but I disagree. The press create hysteria about alleged tourist
threats - no doubt aided and abetted by the police - and everyone goes
into irrational fear mode and are thus buttered up to accept the next
awful bit of legislation. To suggest that the owners of the Sun, the
Mirror and the Mail have no influence in this process is just wrong.
They have an agenda.

To increase government control? Why would that be.

We've had the Congestion Charging mission creep (July 07) and the Oyster
Card data is simply another box to tick.

I really don't think it is you know. There is simply too much data in
too technical a format for open ended access to the system to be of any
value whatsoever.

They can afford to spend a billion or two putting it into intelligible
form.

I really don't think they can. The country is not far off having no
money to spend on anything.

They are currently still pressing on with spending much more on similar
projects, as far as I can see [from the outside].
--
Roland Perry