Concerns regarding the use of concessionary Oyster cards in the London area

[AlbertBeale]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/paying-only-when-challenged-–-cash-vs-card.197292/

As far as London buses are concerned it is much better with them not taking cash.
It is safer for the driver and passengers as no risk of robbery.
Boarding is faster.
Vulnerable people (eg old and disabled) will generally be entitled to free travel via ENCTS.

If you're someone in London who wants to claim concessionary travel, you're only allowed to have it if you use a method of "payment" - ie an electronic Oyster card linked to you - which tracks your movements (information which, as a condition of having the concession, you have to allow TfL to collect, hold, and share with others). This has been described by an elderly and poor person (ie someone needing the concession in order to be able to use public transport) as feeling like, "If you're an old, poor Londoner, you need to wear an electronic bracelet - like a criminal - as a condition of being allowed out of your home." I don't think that's much of an exaggeration,

The downside is someone from out of area being unaware that cash is not accepted on board. In the example of someone near a mainline station Oyster would be available from the accompanying underground station.

Not always easy late at night, especially if you're a stranger to the area.

 

[221129]

as feeling like, "If you're an old, poor Londoner, you need to wear an electronic bracelet - like a criminal - as a condition of being allowed out of your home." I don't think that's much of an exaggeration,

Tin foil hat much?!

 

[Hadders]

If you're someone in London who wants to claim concessionary travel, you're only allowed to have it if you use a method of "payment" - ie an electronic Oyster card linked to you - which tracks your movements (information which, as a condition of having the concession, you have to allow TfL to collect, hold, and share with others). This has been described by an elderly and poor person (ie someone needing the concession in order to be able to use public transport) as feeling like, "If you're an old, poor Londoner, you need to wear an electronic bracelet - like a criminal - as a condition of being allowed out of your home." I don't think that's much of an exaggeration

All ENTCS cards are issued as smart cards. I live outside London and ENTCS card holders have to swipe their card on the reader when they board a bus, so Londoners aren't treated any differently to anyone else.

You don't have to have a ENTCS card there's nothing stopping someone in London from using an unregistered Oyster card if they're worried about privacy.

My main concern about cash on buses is the safety issue for the driver. We're far better off with there being no cash on board.

 

[AlbertBeale]

You don't have to have a ENTCS card there's nothing stopping someone in London from using an unregistered Oyster card if they're worried about privacy.

You can't get an unregistered concessionary card - that's the point I was making. People able to pay can go unregistered; old folks needing a free pass can't.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Tin foil hat much?!

Sorry to be dim - I might be interested in responding if I could make sense of the reference...

 

[sheff1]

All ENTCS cards are issued as smart cards. I live outside London and ENTCS card holders have to swipe their card on the reader when they board a bus, so Londoners aren't treated any differently to anyone else.

I am not sure what was meant by "concessionary" travel in the OP but the holder of a Railcard does have to register if they want to get reduced rate travel on the tube - an "out of town" ENTCS card holder cannot use it on the tube. Anyway, as far as I am aware, swiping an ENTCS card on a bus (as opposed to an Oyster) does not write to a centrally held database as described - indeed, invariably London bus readers reject my out of town ENCTS card and drivers just wave me on.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I am not sure what was meant by "concessionary" travel in the OP but the holder of a Railcard does have to register if they want to get reduced rate travel on the tube - an "out of town" ENTCS card holder cannot use it on the tube. Anyway, as far as I am aware, swiping an ENTCS card on a bus (as opposed to an Oyster) does not write to a centrally held database as described - indeed, invariably London bus readers reject my out of town ENCTS card and drivers just wave me on.

I think that's right; a colleague from out of London who has a local concessionary travel pass which is valid for buses in London can't use the Oyster reader but has to show his photocard to the driver.

I know some Londoners would like such a photocard option (combined with a magnetic stripe card for the tube gates) in lieu of an Oyster for concessionary use. That way they would have the same privacy rights as people who can afford to pay for their travel in London.

 

[Hadders]

If you want free travel then you have to accept the 'difficulties', invasion of privacy, call it want you want. If you want to be anonymous then pay for your travel using a method where you can be anonymous.

 

[AlbertBeale]

If you want free travel then you have to accept the 'difficulties', invasion of privacy, call it want you want. If you want to be anonymous then pay for your travel using a method where you can be anonymous.

Yes - that's the current situation; and therefore discriminates against poor/old/etc people who are stopped from having the same privacy rights as everyone else (unless they stay at home). Invasion of privacy isn't a "difficulty", it's an unnecessary infringement of people's rights.

 

[matt_world2004]

Encts passes from outside London do not work the oyster readers but are valid on the bus when manually presented to the driver.

Oyster and contactless track your movements too

 

[Hadders]

Yes - that's the current situation; and therefore discriminates against poor/old/etc people who are stopped from having the same privacy rights as everyone else (unless they stay at home). Invasion of privacy isn't a "difficulty", it's an unnecessary infringement of people's rights.

They can have the same privacy rights as everyone else if they want to forgo their ENCTS passes.

Outside of London ENCTS passes are swiped on buses upon boarding so their movements are tracked as well.

 

[Llanigraham]

Sorry to be dim - I might be interested in responding if I could make sense of the reference...

Basically it means you are making a fuss about nothing!

 

[AlbertBeale]

They can have the same privacy rights as everyone else if they want to forgo their ENCTS passes.

Outside of London ENCTS passes are swiped on buses upon boarding so their movements are tracked as well.

I'm talking about people in London who're not given the option of a concessionary pass which doesn't track them. If they forgo their concessionary Oyster pass they can't get concessionary travel full stop. Hence they don't have the same privacy rights. If privacy is a right, it shouldn't only be available to better off people (who can, even when older/disabled/whatever, continue to pay for their travel in London and have the option of non-trackable Oyster cards).

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can't get an unregistered concessionary card - that's the point I was making. People able to pay can go unregistered; old folks needing a free pass can't.

They could choose to pay using an unregistered card like anyone else if they preferred. It's not unreasonable to tag other requirements to getting something for free (something well in excess of what people outside London get, too).

Meanwhile the vast majority of others are using contactless and registered cards, as I'm not clear what nefarious purpose TfL would have with the data (unlike, say, Google, who are collecting loads of data from the Android device in your pocket).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes - that's the current situation; and therefore discriminates against poor/old/etc people who are stopped from having the same privacy rights as everyone else (unless they stay at home). Invasion of privacy isn't a "difficulty", it's an unnecessary infringement of people's rights.

How on earth do you propose people would be issued passes based on their age without being able to track who they were at the point of issue and the point of use?

 

[RitishBrail]

If they forgo their concessionary Oyster pass they can't get concessionary travel full stop. Hence they don't have the same privacy rights. If privacy is a right, it shouldn't only be available to better off people.

There's no 'right' to concessionary travel though, so people can choose to exercise their rights to privacy by either paying for travel on an unregistered card, or not travelling at all. If they want to take advantage of the free travel arrangement, then using a (potentially) trackable Oyster card is hardly a massive trade off, IMHO.

FYI, to clarify the tin-foil-hat reference someone else made earlier, you might find this article useful

 

[Fawkes Cat]

This is an interesting one. Presumably those people who want to keep their movements private from the state nonetheless want to benefit from the state's provision of free travel, which does rather feel like having your cake and eating it. It also seems to start from an assumption that the state is, or may become, hostile, and follows through with an assumption that an individual's data might be effectively extracted from the bulk collected. Both of these assumptions are arguable rather than certain.

But against this, personal data is only meant to be collected if there's a reason to do so. And off the top of my head, I can't see why TfL would need to know what journeys a given pass holder had made. I can see that there is a need at issue to identify that the holder is entitled to a pass, but nothing beyond that. As I understand it, the pass is funded on a cross-London basis, so there's no need to produce a bill for each London Borough to pay for their residents' travel. And if the aim is to prevent use by someone other than the card holder then surely it's better to catch the abuser in possession of the card rather than showing that the authorised holder does not have it.

So what am I missing?

 

[CrispyUK]

And if the aim is to prevent use by someone other than the card holder then surely it's better to catch the abuser in possession of the card rather than showing that the authorised holder does not have it.

So what am I missing?

Analysis of journey history would allow TfL to identify unusual usage patterns for a concessionary pass, and likely provide their revenue protection team on the ground with a specific station/gateline and window of time to target if they wanted to intercept the person using the pass, and check they were the same person to whom it had been issued.

 

[AlbertBeale]

How on earth do you propose people would be issued passes based on their age without being able to track who they were at the point of issue and the point of use?

Of course you need to prove residence and age to get a card; and since it has a photocard attached, like railcards do, that can then be used to validate it when using it. That doesn't require automated tracking of which person travels where and when. Out-of-London concessionary bus passes are valid on London buses in that way (with a photocard shown to the driver or to any ticket inspector); but Londoners are denied that option currently.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/paying-only-when-challenged-–-cash-vs-card.197292/

If you're someone in London who wants to claim concessionary travel, you're only allowed to have it if you use a method of "payment" - ie an electronic Oyster card linked to you - which tracks your movements (information which, as a condition of having the concession, you have to allow TfL to collect, hold, and share with others). This has been described by an elderly and poor person (ie someone needing the concession in order to be able to use public transport) as feeling like, "If you're an old, poor Londoner, you need to wear an electronic bracelet - like a criminal - as a condition of being allowed out of your home." I don't think that's much of an exaggeration.

No, it's neurotic and delusional hyperbole.

 

[AlbertBeale]

This is an interesting one. Presumably those people who want to keep their movements private from the state nonetheless want to benefit from the state's provision of free travel, which does rather feel like having your cake and eating it. It also seems to start from an assumption that the state is, or may become, hostile, and follows through with an assumption that an individual's data might be effectively extracted from the bulk collected. Both of these assumptions are arguable rather than certain.

Having your cake and eating it doesn't, it seems to me, relate to the diminution of human rights in return for using public facilities to which one is entitled. Having your cake and eating it, in my book, relates more to multinational corporations making profits out of facilities in Britain but then taking their profits abroad to avoid payment of taxes here.

But against this, personal data is only meant to be collected if there's a reason to do so. And off the top of my head, I can't see why TfL would need to know what journeys a given pass holder had made. I can see that there is a need at issue to identify that the holder is entitled to a pass, but nothing beyond that. As I understand it, the pass is funded on a cross-London basis, so there's no need to produce a bill for each London Borough to pay for their residents' travel. And if the aim is to prevent use by someone other than the card holder then surely it's better to catch the abuser in possession of the card rather than showing that the authorised holder does not have it.

So what am I missing?

Agreed. And re the last point, a photocard can do the trick.

 

[AlbertBeale]

No, it's neurotic and delusional hyperbole.

I have a different understanding of neurosis and of delusion.

If a person genuinely feels they're being treated like a criminal, then that feeling might not be at all delusional.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Of course you need to prove residence and age to get a card; and since it has a photocard attached, like railcards do, that can then be used to validate it when using it. That doesn't require automated tracking of which person travels where and when. Out-of-London concessionary bus passes are valid on London buses in that way (with a photocard shown to the driver or to any ticket inspector); but Londoners are denied that option currently.

Outside of London, UIVMM it's now universal for concessionary bus pass holders to have to validate their pass (an ITSO smartcard) when boarding a bus - this includes London Freedom Pass holders as these have ITSO functionality.

The only reason out-of-London concessionary bus passes holders do not have to validate their cards on the readers on London buses is because the now rather ageing ETMs (ticket machines and validators) cannot handle them. When they get an upgrade - when TfL have enough money, or they all fall apart - then out-of-London concessionary bus passes holders will have to validate (touch-in) in the same way as Freedom Pass holders.

That's when pass holders who have voted the wrong way in the most recent election will be denied boarding...

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

A few years ago I went to a very interesting lecture at the Royal Geographical Society about Big Data. One of the speakers had done a lot of work on data gained via Oyster Cards from TfL. Apparently there is so much data that it is unusable in any meaningful way. Don’t thing Mrs Moggins and co using their free pass to go shopping have much to worry about. They’re better off worrying about the crisis in social care for when they are too frail to use their pass.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Analysis of journey history would allow TfL to identify unusual usage patterns for a concessionary pass, and likely provide their revenue protection team on the ground with a specific station/gateline and window of time to target if they wanted to intercept the person using the pass, and check they were the same person to whom it had been issued.

But do you need to know who is undertaking the unusual travel pattern to consider it worthy of investigation? Given that (as far as I can make out) no-one is objecting to Freedom passes showing who they are issued to, then on interception the check of bearer against owner will still be straightforward.

 

[sheff1]

Outside of London, UIVMM it's now universal for concessionary bus pass holders to have to validate their pass (an ITSO smartcard) when boarding a bus - this includes London Freedom Pass holders as these have ITSO functionality.

You are mistaken. In the last couple of months I have used buses in Loughborough & Widnes on which there was no facility to tap in with an ENCTS card.

 

[Llanigraham]

This is an interesting one. Presumably those people who want to keep their movements private from the state nonetheless want to benefit from the state's provision of free travel, which does rather feel like having your cake and eating it. It also seems to start from an assumption that the state is, or may become, hostile, and follows through with an assumption that an individual's data might be effectively extracted from the bulk collected. Both of these assumptions are arguable rather than certain.

But against this, personal data is only meant to be collected if there's a reason to do so. And off the top of my head, I can't see why TfL would need to know what journeys a given pass holder had made. I can see that there is a need at issue to identify that the holder is entitled to a pass, but nothing beyond that. As I understand it, the pass is funded on a cross-London basis, so there's no need to produce a bill for each London Borough to pay for their residents' travel. And if the aim is to prevent use by someone other than the card holder then surely it's better to catch the abuser in possession of the card rather than showing that the authorised holder does not have it.

So what am I missing?

It isn't the State that provides free travel, but the local Councils. If it was the State my Welsh Bus Pass would be acceptable in England, and vice versa.

 

[CrispyUK]

But do you need to know who is undertaking the unusual travel pattern to consider it worthy of investigation? Given that (as far as I can make out) no-one is objecting to Freedom passes showing who they are issued to, then on interception the check of bearer against owner will still be straightforward.

At the point of analysis, the identity of who the pass was issued to isn’t necessarily important, and certainly where human operators are involved in this analysis, the correct practice would be for them to work with anonymised data to reduce the potential for abuse of information, although at the same time, certain details such as the holders address (even if approximated) would be useful for identifying if a pass is being misused.

For investigation purposes, knowing who the pass was issued to could well be useful. What if the physical pass has been tampered with to show a different name or photo? (I’m not familiar enough with the security mechanisms on the cards or how advanced the fraudsters are to know if this is a possibility, sorry!)

Knowing “on the system” who a specific pass has been issued to would also be needed to allow lost/stolen passes to be cancelled where required, and presumably also prevents an eligible person applying for/being issued with multiple concession passes which they can then share/sell with others.

As with any data, it could be used for customer/passenger benefit (transferring PAYG balance/travelcards when a registered pass is lost/stolen for example), it could be used for the benefit of TfL (such as revenue protection or capacity planning), or it could be used for inappropriate purposes where privacy is compromised. That all comes down to the data being kept securely, and access managed so only those who have a genuine need to link pass holder identity and journey history together have that access.

 

[Llanigraham]

Of course you need to prove residence and age to get a card; and since it has a photocard attached, like railcards do, that can then be used to validate it when using it. That doesn't require automated tracking of which person travels where and when. Out-of-London concessionary bus passes are valid on London buses in that way (with a photocard shown to the driver or to any ticket inspector); but Londoners are denied that option currently.

Perhaps English ones, but not Welsh, Scottish or Irish.
And I really do not understand this dislike of being tracked.

I have a different understanding of neurosis and of delusion.

If a person genuinely feels they're being treated like a criminal, then that feeling might not be at all delusional.

No one is treating anyone like a criminal!

 

[RitishBrail]

I really do not understand this dislike of being tracked.

One also has to assume that the pensioner in question also objects to ever using a mobile phone, the internet, a bank card or ATM etc...