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.