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?