asdf wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:26:39 -0400, David of Broadway wrote:

What happens currently on a Travelcard trip between Notting Hill Gate
and Acton Town? Upthread we determined that a PAYG trip is charged the
via-Z1 fare. But is a Z2-6 Travelcard valid for the same trip with no
extension charge?

I reckon the answer is no - that the system always treats it as a Z123
journey, regardless of whether or not you have a Travelcard on your
Oyster (and what zones it's valid in). But we won't really know unless
someone actually tries it.

If you'd like to cover my airfare from New York, I'd be glad to try it.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

On 7 May 2007 23:22:11 GMT, "Michael R N Dolbear"
wrote:

MIG wrote
[...]
I found that you can't claim a refund without registering with your
full name and address. In other words, if you've been caught in such
a situation, you have to choose between being ripped off for £8 and
having your movements tracked thereafter. Not good news if you prefer
not to register for the sake of privacy.

No, not "thereafter" since you can immediately turn in your card,
collect the deposit and get a new unregistered one.

Only your prior movements will thereafter be associated with you on Big
Brother Ken's database.


don't you think they might know who & were u are anyway, the bombers
may not have had oyster cards ?

On May 12, 1:10 am, Martyn Dawe wrote:
On 7 May 2007 23:22:11 GMT, "Michael R N Dolbear"
wrote:

MIG wrote
[...]
I found that you can't claim a refund without registering with your
full name and address. In other words, if you've been caught in such
a situation, you have to choose between being ripped off for £8 and
having your movements tracked thereafter. Not good news if you prefer
not to register for the sake of privacy.

No, not "thereafter" since you can immediately turn in your card,
collect the deposit and get a new unregistered one.

Only your prior movements will thereafter be associated with you on Big
Brother Ken's database.

don't you think they might know who & were u are anyway, the bombers
may not have had oyster cards ?



If I am arrested with an unregistered Oyster on me, no doubt it is
possible to find out where that Oyster has been as part of an
investigation into charges against me.

That is not the same as passively recording my movements when I am not
suspected of any crime (other than a pattern of movement that may at
any time be deemed by the powers that be to be deviant).

On 12 May 2007 01:59:36 -0700, MIG
wrote:

That is not the same as passively recording my movements when I am not
suspected of any crime (other than a pattern of movement that may at
any time be deemed by the powers that be to be deviant).

Think about how many Oyster cards there are out there, and how many
journeys are made with them. Then think about how much time and effort
(and money) it would take to assess the data for "deviant patterns".

And then wake up and snap out of your paranoia.

On May 12, 2:35 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 01:59:36 -0700, MIG
wrote:

That is not the same as passively recording my movements when I am not
suspected of any crime (other than a pattern of movement that may at
any time be deemed by the powers that be to be deviant).

Think about how many Oyster cards there are out there, and how many
journeys are made with them. Then think about how much time and effort
(and money) it would take to assess the data for "deviant patterns".

And then wake up and snap out of your paranoia.



Notice my use of the word "passively". It's only the analysis that
takes effort, and that can be done at any time in the future, as long
as the data is collected.

If you really think that collecting data for subsequent mining is too
much trouble, why do you suppose they have supermarket "loyalty" cards?

On 12 May 2007 06:47:31 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On May 12, 2:35 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 01:59:36 -0700, MIG
wrote:

That is not the same as passively recording my movements when I am not
suspected of any crime (other than a pattern of movement that may at
any time be deemed by the powers that be to be deviant).

Think about how many Oyster cards there are out there, and how many
journeys are made with them. Then think about how much time and effort
(and money) it would take to assess the data for "deviant patterns".

And then wake up and snap out of your paranoia.



Notice my use of the word "passively". It's only the analysis that
takes effort, and that can be done at any time in the future, as long
as the data is collected.

But analysis for "deviant" patterns necessarily must take place
promptly, or it is irrelevant.

If you really think that collecting data for subsequent mining is too
much trouble, why do you suppose they have supermarket "loyalty" cards?

For collective data, not for data on individuals.

You really are paranoid, aren't you? I don't think there's a cure.

On May 12, 3:05 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 06:47:31 -0700, MIG
wrote:





On May 12, 2:35 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 01:59:36 -0700, MIG
wrote:

That is not the same as passively recording my movements when I am not
suspected of any crime (other than a pattern of movement that may at
any time be deemed by the powers that be to be deviant).

Think about how many Oyster cards there are out there, and how many
journeys are made with them. Then think about how much time and effort
(and money) it would take to assess the data for "deviant patterns".

And then wake up and snap out of your paranoia.

Notice my use of the word "passively". It's only the analysis that
takes effort, and that can be done at any time in the future, as long
as the data is collected.

But analysis for "deviant" patterns necessarily must take place
promptly, or it is irrelevant.

If you really think that collecting data for subsequent mining is too
much trouble, why do you suppose they have supermarket "loyalty" cards?

For collective data, not for data on individuals.

You really are paranoid, aren't you? I don't think there's a cure


No, they could get collective data from the till records (eg buying
beer and nappies together). The purpose of loyalty cards is to get
long term data about individuals' patterns of purchases. These are
necessarily linked to the individual, or they couldn't provide the
"rewards".

No cure for naivety either.

On 12 May 2007 07:35:51 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On May 12, 3:05 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 06:47:31 -0700, MIG
wrote:





On May 12, 2:35 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 01:59:36 -0700, MIG
wrote:

That is not the same as passively recording my movements when I am not
suspected of any crime (other than a pattern of movement that may at
any time be deemed by the powers that be to be deviant).

Think about how many Oyster cards there are out there, and how many
journeys are made with them. Then think about how much time and effort
(and money) it would take to assess the data for "deviant patterns".

And then wake up and snap out of your paranoia.

Notice my use of the word "passively". It's only the analysis that
takes effort, and that can be done at any time in the future, as long
as the data is collected.

But analysis for "deviant" patterns necessarily must take place
promptly, or it is irrelevant.

If you really think that collecting data for subsequent mining is too
much trouble, why do you suppose they have supermarket "loyalty" cards?

For collective data, not for data on individuals.

You really are paranoid, aren't you? I don't think there's a cure


No, they could get collective data from the till records (eg buying
beer and nappies together). The purpose of loyalty cards is to get
long term data about individuals' patterns of purchases.

Even if that is true, what's the problem?

On May 12, 4:20 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 07:35:51 -0700, MIG
wrote:





On May 12, 3:05 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 06:47:31 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On May 12, 2:35 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 01:59:36 -0700, MIG
wrote:

That is not the same as passively recording my movements when I am not
suspected of any crime (other than a pattern of movement that may at
any time be deemed by the powers that be to be deviant).

Think about how many Oyster cards there are out there, and how many
journeys are made with them. Then think about how much time and effort
(and money) it would take to assess the data for "deviant patterns".

And then wake up and snap out of your paranoia.

Notice my use of the word "passively". It's only the analysis that
takes effort, and that can be done at any time in the future, as long
as the data is collected.

But analysis for "deviant" patterns necessarily must take place
promptly, or it is irrelevant.

If you really think that collecting data for subsequent mining is too
much trouble, why do you suppose they have supermarket "loyalty" cards?

For collective data, not for data on individuals.

You really are paranoid, aren't you? I don't think there's a cure

No, they could get collective data from the till records (eg buying
beer and nappies together). The purpose of loyalty cards is to get
long term data about individuals' patterns of purchases.

Even if that is true, what's the problem?-


Well, back to the original point, it IS easy to do, and I would simply
rather than they didn't record stuff about me.

Rather than worry about what governments, supermarkets, governments'
successors and any number of third parties they sell the data to might
do with information about me, I would simply prefer them not to store
it in the first place, which is why I haven't registered my Oyster.

On 12 May 2007 08:29:22 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On May 12, 4:20 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 07:35:51 -0700, MIG
wrote:





On May 12, 3:05 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 06:47:31 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On May 12, 2:35 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 01:59:36 -0700, MIG
wrote:

That is not the same as passively recording my movements when I am not
suspected of any crime (other than a pattern of movement that may at
any time be deemed by the powers that be to be deviant).

Think about how many Oyster cards there are out there, and how many
journeys are made with them. Then think about how much time and effort
(and money) it would take to assess the data for "deviant patterns".

And then wake up and snap out of your paranoia.

Notice my use of the word "passively". It's only the analysis that
takes effort, and that can be done at any time in the future, as long
as the data is collected.

But analysis for "deviant" patterns necessarily must take place
promptly, or it is irrelevant.

If you really think that collecting data for subsequent mining is too
much trouble, why do you suppose they have supermarket "loyalty" cards?

For collective data, not for data on individuals.

You really are paranoid, aren't you? I don't think there's a cure

No, they could get collective data from the till records (eg buying
beer and nappies together). The purpose of loyalty cards is to get
long term data about individuals' patterns of purchases.

Even if that is true, what's the problem?-


Well, back to the original point, it IS easy to do, and I would simply
rather than they didn't record stuff about me.

Rather than worry about what governments, supermarkets, governments'
successors and any number of third parties they sell the data to might
do with information about me, I would simply prefer them not to store
it in the first place, which is why I haven't registered my Oyster.

You think that they're not collecting the data for unregistered cards?