Got on the bus on Saturday, and concentrating on the stupid tiny little
screen so that I should see my remaining balance I didn't notice whether I
got a red/green light (or a beep)

When nothing came up on the screen I asked the driver if it had registered,
and she said no.

So I "tapped in" again and got "card already used for this journey", driver
looked bemused, I shrugged and sat down.

And now on obtaining a printout of my journey history I find that I didn't
make a registered bus journey at 18:00 on Saturday.

So how did that happen (and I dread to think what the conversation would
have been if an inspector got on - he wouldn't have believed me, would he!)?

tim...... wrote:

Got on the bus on Saturday, and concentrating on the stupid tiny little
screen so that I should see my remaining balance I didn't notice whether I
got a red/green light (or a beep)

When nothing came up on the screen I asked the driver if it had
registered, and she said no.

So I "tapped in" again and got "card already used for this journey",
driver looked bemused, I shrugged and sat down.

And now on obtaining a printout of my journey history I find that I didn't
make a registered bus journey at 18:00 on Saturday.

So how did that happen (and I dread to think what the conversation would
have been if an inspector got on - he wouldn't have believed me, would
he!)?

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 paper pass, with the relevant validations printed on it (date(s) etc.)
serves this purpose. As does a conventional ticket issued for a single or
return pay-as-you-go journey.

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.

Similarly, a card/paper 10-trip ticket (where the driver punches a hole each
time I board) provides no objective evidence that I have paid for my
journey if an inspector challenges me. Is it the operator's problem or
mine? (I may as well never take any ticket that the driver issues me,
provided I carry an exhausted 10-trip card with me at all times!)

So, which of these is the case:
(a) there was no such law;
(b) there was a law but it got repealed;
(c) there is such a law but it is now routinely ignored;
(d) something else.

(Sorry, I know the 10-trip ticket example is very provincial!)

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. I don't think
there's any suggestion that Oyster (or other) cards can appear to be
correctly validated as you get on the bus but then show no such
validation when interrogated later... the original post was about a
bus journey not appearing on the web site the next day (I think), and
in my experience it sometimes takes a day or two extra to show up.

Richard.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Richard.

In message , at 11:10:38 on
Sat, 2 Nov 2013, Richard remarked:
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.

You've never encountered a GNER gripper; I can tell.

I once spent most of the trip from Peterborough to London arguing the
toss with several intransigent GNER staff over whether my ticket
qualified me for a free cup of coffee. It did, but they only conceded
after a protracted fight.

Compare and contrast to the ECML's current incumbent where such
arguments are almost guaranteed when the "free" First Class catering is
only available to people whose trip is over 70 minutes, and some
schedules from Grantham to London are more than 70 minutes and some are
less. (And they aren't brave enough to come out and say that Grantham is
either "always in" or "always out", regardless of how many milliseconds
either side of the 70 minutes they are scheduled for).
--
Roland Perry

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.

In message , at 15:50:47 on
Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:
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 peo

I think there's clearly some merit in both points of view.

Obviously no-one is going to start issuing bits of paper to confirm
Smartcard transactions because going e-ticket/e-cash is the whole point
of introducing them.

But there's a genuine concern that transactions become *much* harder to
audit from the consumer's point of view, and a lot of the time it's a
case of "trust us, we have the computer".

Oyster have in fact been improving the auditability over the years, and
it's now reached a state that I think most people will be happy with.
It's even possible to produce records that a finance department will
accept for the purposes of claiming expenses. What a novelty!

I hope that ITSO cards will *start* with that level of user
auditability, but I've yet to see it in practice.

From a convenience point of view, I very much like the Nottingham bus
smartcard carnet system, but it's almost entirely unauditable. All the
passenger gets is a quick flash of the number of days left, when it's
first used each day; or you can visit one office in the City Centre and
think they'll give you a verbal quote.

I think a lot of the problems arise because the systems are really
designed for season tickets, where (as you've described regarding your
own usage) it doesn't really matter [to anyone] if you swipe zero, one
or two times. And trying to apply the same processes to PAYG use, where
suddenly it does matter.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:00:38 on
Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:48:12 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 15:50:47 on
Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:
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 peo

I think there's clearly some merit in both points of view.

There might be but I rather suspect the "receipt view" is borne out of
the practice in some council areas of tickets being issued when
someone presents a national concessionary permit on a smartcard
reader. Those "chits" are often zero value so utterly pointless in my
view but presumably give someone a "warm feeling" that something has
happened that allows them to travel.

I've always thought that the chits were for the benefit of the bus
company who could use the log of the number of them issued to get their
money from the local authority.

We have years and years of experience in London of dealing with
hundreds of millions of transactions a month without needing to kill
millions of trees to create paper receipts. It is pointless, IMO, to
go back to any sort of system that requires the regular creation of
receipts. Oyster users can request a card printout on any TfL bus or
at a LU station which I think is a reasonable fall back position for
people who want to know what has happened.

As I said earlier, the Oyster auditability is much improved, but it
wasn't always like that.

Obviously no-one is going to start issuing bits of paper to confirm
Smartcard transactions because going e-ticket/e-cash is the whole point
of introducing them.

Part of the point but lets not quibble unduly.

But there's a genuine concern that transactions become *much* harder to
audit from the consumer's point of view, and a lot of the time it's a
case of "trust us, we have the computer".

Well possibly. I think what we really have is a very large user base
with a very large spread of experience (good and bad) with technology.
We all have different levels of acceptance of systems and I'm pretty
sure this is why you get differing attitudes to the level of
reassurance that people require.

Ultimately, if it comes to a dispute where a passenger believes they did
touch in, but "the system" says they didn't, there has to be a
non-combative way to resolve it with either satisfactory and timely
forensic auditing, or always giving the passenger the benefit of the
doubt.

The last time I was in Notthingham I popped into the NCT shop in the
central area and it was very busy with people buying or renewing
tickets. I assume that is par for the course.

They appear to think they are running a Post Office, so there's
regularly a long queue, and out of the door. The biggest queue I saw was
the day after a "Y2010 bug" disabled lots of their cards, and that
stretched a hundred yards down the street.

I think a lot of the problems arise because the systems are really
designed for season tickets, where (as you've described regarding your
own usage) it doesn't really matter [to anyone] if you swipe zero, one
or two times. And trying to apply the same processes to PAYG use, where
suddenly it does matter.

You're always going to have some sort of "confirmation" transaction to
register your use of a public transport service.

I was checking things out at Sainsbury's self service earlier today, and
about a third of the items that appeared to register (a loud *beep* from
the scanner) suddenly became an "UNEXPECTED ITEM IN BAGGING AREA", and
needed to be re-scanned.

What is interesting with the ITSO card applications on National Rail
is the insistence on the cards always being used to touch in and out.
I confess, apart from gathering passenger usage stats, I do not see
the reason for mandating card validation for season tickets. If there
are ticket gates then fair enough but ungated stations have those
teensy validators on poles. If the TOCs were offering PAYG or
something similar on their smart tickets then I can completely
understand making validation compulsory.

Is it mind-games like those played by TfL, where they insist *everyone*
to touch in and out, just to make sure that the PAYG people they want to
charge are conditioned to touch in and out. Meanwhile the season ticket
holders are doing an irrelevant dance.
--
Roland Perry

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?