Passenger-unfriendly downsides of e-tickets?

[trainophile]

Is this the case? Do most people own printers? We haven't had one in a long time, as hardly ever used it. I will occasionally print stuff at work, but not often.

We don't even own a PC or laptop any more, just a tablet.

I don't have a "work" to take advantage of, being retired. I'm not going to impose upon friends (no family nearby) considering I travel all the time and would be constantly pestering them for a favour.

 

[Russel]

1. Privacy - There is no scan history with paper tickets, so your movements aren't being tracked. This becomes less of a problem if bought from a TVM, and if paying cash the problem is eliminated.

Is this for real?

Presumably anyone that is paranoid about being tracked also wouldn't carry a mobile phone, bank card and would avoid all CCTV cameras?

 

[Starmill]

That is really rather irritating.

Maybe it's idealistic, but you would think phase 1 of a project to switch over from one format of tickets to another would be to phase in the equipment for the new format until it is everywhere, at which point you can commence phase 2 which is withdrawal of the old format.

That phases 1 and 2 are happening concurrently is absolutely no surprise in Great Britain's fragmented rail industry, but it is frustrating all the same.


Fine by me. Although I've had to revert to paper for day travelcards having previously switched over to smartcard because LNER only issues them on paper, and I want the Amex cashback.

I bought a paper roll ticket in 2016. That's over eight years ago now and this problem has been ongoing ever since.

Lots of TOCs switched off their last portable CCST printers many years ago, some as long ago as 2017.

 

[redreni]

I bought a paper roll ticket in 2016. That's over eight years ago now and this problem has been ongoing ever since.

Lots of TOCs switched off their last portable CCST printers many years ago, some as long ago as 2017.

Well, quite. But unlike things like building Crossrail, I don't particularly care how long it takes to do it. I do care if things are done out of sequence so that some tickets can't be sold in places where they used to be available.

 

[Sonic1234]

Is this for real?

Presumably anyone that is paranoid about being tracked also wouldn't carry a mobile phone, bank card and would avoid all CCTV cameras?

The concern is about TOC prosecution departments going on a fishing trip. A CCST bought in cash leaves no easy accessible record to the train company, buying e-tickets from Trainline gives them easy access to all your purchases as well as your name and address. TOCs won't have access to phone signal data and banking history, and are unlikely to go looking through CCTV when there is so much low hanging fruit.

If you're trying to hide your travel history from MI5, good luck even with paper tickets and cash.

 

[Russel]

The concern is about TOC prosecution departments going on a fishing trip. A CCST bought in cash leaves no easy accessible record to the train company, buying e-tickets from Trainline gives them easy access to all your purchases as well as your name and address. TOCs won't have access to phone signal data and banking history, and are unlikely to go looking through CCTV when there is so much low hanging fruit.

Unless you're engaged in some form of fare evasion, or give the TOC reason to suspect you of such, this really isn't something I can see being an issue.

 

[Hadders]

These days, we all have a huge digital footprint whether it be shopping in a supermarket, attending a sporting event, using public transport, or eben visiting a National Trust property!

The issue I have from a railway point of view is where the data is stored, what it might be used for, who has access to it and for how long is it stored for.

For example, someone gets issued with a Penalty Fare. Does that (or should it) mean that a train company can then research that persons travel history to find out if they have comitted similar offences in the past? And if so, how long should the train company be able to go back in time?

What about someone who is doughnutting - eg someone buying a Milton Keynes to Bletchley and South Hampstead to Euston tickets. Should a train compnany be able to compare the ticket purchasing history with gateline ticket scan data to indentify someone travelling with invalid tickets? Once they have identified someone should they have to physically catch the person in the act? Or could they just write to the person threatening all sorts of action unless they pay a settlement? Should or could this process be automated?

 

[signed]

Remember that Google knows your exact whereabouts by default, and proudly shows a map of your geolocation history, so a rail ticket is puny compared to that

 

[redreni]

Unless you're engaged in some form of fare evasion, or give the TOC reason to suspect you of such, this really isn't something I can see being an issue.

It is attitudes like this that will see us slide ever further into authoritarianism.

If a society's rules are obeyed because most people believe they are fair and reasonable, the society is healthy. If they are obeyed because people fear authority, the rules no longer need to be seen to be fair or reasonable and will change in favour of the powerful.

Remember that Google knows your exact whereabouts by default, and proudly shows a map of your geolocation history, so a rail ticket is puny compared to that

Because one corporate entity has far too much information about us, doesn't mean we should necessarily want to give it to another. What they don't have, they can't use, can't pass to third parties and can't lose control of.

 

[sheff1]

even being told at Liverpool Street when I had a Hare Fare e-ticket that if it doesn't scan its not valid!

The "computer says no" attitude of some staff (usually at station barriers it appears) is the major downside in my view.

You'll struggle to find a credit card sized ticket soon enough.

While I have no doubt they will disappear at some point, people have been telling us for years on here that the end will be "soon" or even "very soon". Clearly they have different understanding of "soon" to me.

I suspect, aside from where e-tickets aren't offered, basically nobody is choosing ToD when e-ticket is an option aside from those wishing to make a point of principle

You suspect wrongly.

Remember that Google knows your exact whereabouts by default, and proudly shows a map of your geolocation history

Unsure how Google will know my whereabaouts by default when I do not carry a mobile, or any other electronic device, by default.

 

[Starmill]

Unsure how Google will know my whereabaouts by default when I do not carry a mobile, or any other electronic device, by default.

The problem is that for those holding out on this, while that's 100% their right and I support it, there's an increasingly long list of things they've been excluded from. For example the Lidl Plus app has never been available for non-smartphone users (OK technically you can go to a manual checkout and give them your phone number but you'd have to sign up to it on someone else's device and you wouldn't be able to activate any of your offers). The Co-op and Nectar apps don't allow you to activate offers unless you have a smartphone either even though you can use them on plastic cards. The Amazon shops required an all. The Pret subscription wasn't available to any non-smartphone users. And so on... And that's just a few retailers I thought of.

 

[mikeg]

The problem is that for those holding out on this, while that's 100% their right and I support it, there's an increasingly long list of things they've been excluded from. For example the Lidl Plus app has never been available for non-smartphone users (OK technically you can go to a manual checkout and give them your phone number but you'd have to sign up to it on someone else's device and you wouldn't be able to activate any of your offers). The Co-op and Nectar apps don't allow you to activate offers unless you have a smartphone either even though you can use them on plastic cards. The Amazon shops required an all. The Pret subscription wasn't available to any non-smartphone users. And so on... And that's just a few retailers I thought of.

The co op allows you to activate offers through the website. I did it a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Starmill]

The co op allows you to activate offers through the website. I did it a couple of weeks ago.

That's fair enough if they'll still issue you a plastic card, but of course many won't do that now.

 

[sheff1]

The problem is that for those holding out on this, while that's 100% their right and I support it, there's an increasingly long list of things they've been excluded from.

I own a smartphone, just don't carry it with me everywhere I go.

 

[infobleep]

That's fair enough if they'll still issue you a plastic card, but of course many won't do that now.

Waitrose allows you to activate ofers through their Web site.

Once done you can then pay for your shopping and the offers get taken into account automatically.

If a TOC is actually doing what you suggested where the passenger did not explicitly opt in to marketing contact, they are potentially going to be at the thick end of some legal cacases.

On a South Western Railway 455 unit, one can select all the marketing options when logging in.

I don't know which one they choose though as they contradict one another. I don't have a screenshot to hand.

 

[redreni]

The problem is that for those holding out on this, while that's 100% their right and I support it, there's an increasingly long list of things they've been excluded from. For example the Lidl Plus app has never been available for non-smartphone users (OK technically you can go to a manual checkout and give them your phone number but you'd have to sign up to it on someone else's device and you wouldn't be able to activate any of your offers). The Co-op and Nectar apps don't allow you to activate offers unless you have a smartphone either even though you can use them on plastic cards. The Amazon shops required an all. The Pret subscription wasn't available to any non-smartphone users. And so on... And that's just a few retailers I thought of.

That doesn't exclude people from shopping at Lidl.

With these sort of schemes I usually just ignore them, unless I spend a lot of money with the business in which case I assess whether the proposed benefits (or, increasingly, deterrent pricing for non-participants) values realistically the personal data and consent for processing I am expected to give. Usually I don't regard it as a particularly finely balanced decision.

But like with railway ticketing, the businesses no doubt see the solution for the hold-outs as making the option not to consent to processing prohibitively expensive, together with normalising the collection, processing and eventually resale of personal data to the point where the legitimate interest standard can be met.

Making 'what most people would expect' the standard does mean, of course, the more is done under legitimate interest, the more is allowed to be done under legitimate interest.

 

[akm]

While I have no doubt they [CCST tickets] will disappear at some point, people have been telling us for years on here that the end will be "soon" or even "very soon". Clearly they have different understanding of "soon" to me.

Quite so. See also, words to the effect of "GBR will sort all this out".

 

[125Spotter]

Recently I have also become of the opinion that I will fall back to booking CCSTs for as long as the local machines issue them. Most of my journeys involve a cross-London element on TfL for which a paper ticket is currently necessary.

I'm not typically a privacy 'freak'. I use a bank card to make most purchases. I accept the footprint I leave. However, I do not appreciate ToC prosecution departments' attitudes after reading this forum and the type of dragnet surveillance that seems to be performed by them. To be frank, many ToCs seem incompetent.

I am not performing any sort of fare evasion. It's more a matter of principle regarding defending what limited civil liberties we have left.

Perhaps the barcode should be able to be read by the holder, so they can see what information is held

Someone made an app to decode the Aztec codes: https://eta.st/2023/01/31/rail-tickets.html

Unfortunately the railway responded by blocking access to the public keys used to decode the Aztec codes. And due to the way these are designed, it's not a signature only - the whole code is encrypted with the retailer's private key so you do need access to the public counterpart to decode it.

I only partially understand this response. Anyone who comprehends public key cryptography will understand there is all upside of having the public key, and no downside. Further anyone will also understand that security through obscurity is not a viable means of security (although I accept it is not their only protection here).

My guess is they are concerned that the app didn't have online access to the ticketing database(s) and they were concerned (or it actually happened) that individuals were confused that their ability to scan a ticket locally did not validate it online against the database. Only a partial answer though, and a typical railway shortsightedness.

Unless you're engaged in some form of fare evasion, or give the TOC reason to suspect you of such, this really isn't something I can see being an issue.

Very Orwellian. No thanks, I'm not interested in handing what are still private companies more power over me than they need.

A bit like saying freedom of speech isn't important because I have nothing to say.

If you connect to a WiFi Network on a train, some TOCs check the email address and other meta data like Device ID to try to reconcile that against bookings made with

I make up rubbish email addresses and names to get through these. These days 5G onboard is good enough that I don't even need to bother using the WiFi provision.

I can still be fingerprinted, sure, if I use the WiFi. But at least one local ToC has given up collecting this information and just asks you to click through. I wonder what motivated this.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Quite so. See also, words to the effect of "GBR will sort all this out".

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Starmill]

That doesn't exclude people from shopping at Lidl.

With these sort of schemes I usually just ignore them, unless I spend a lot of money with the business in which case I assess whether the proposed benefits (or, increasingly, deterrent pricing for non-participants) values realistically the personal data and consent for processing I am expected to give. Usually I don't regard it as a particularly finely balanced decision.

But like with railway ticketing, the businesses no doubt see the solution for the hold-outs as making the option not to consent to processing prohibitively expensive, together with normalising the collection, processing and eventually resale of personal data to the point where the legitimate interest standard can be met.

Making 'what most people would expect' the standard does mean, of course, the more is done under legitimate interest, the more is allowed to be done under legitimate interest.

All of the major chains except for Aldi, including now Lidl, are widely rolling out price discrimination based on loyalty scanning (i.e no interaction basis, just a higher shelf label price for non-scanners, thus revealing exactly how much your data is worth right there in the shelf edge). Excluded from shopping there, no, not like the handful of Tesco and Amazon shops with scanners for entry. But excluded from the benefit of choosing to shop there in the first place, the benefits previously received by just anyone, definitely. Your description of it as prohibitively expensive is definitely a good one, and far more so than charging £1 for a ToD or whatever.

This is easier to circumvent because you can ask a stranger at the checkout to scan for you to get the lower prices - but the chains accurately guess that most British people will be too awkward to do that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All of the major chains except for Aldi, including Lidl, are widely rolling out price discrimination based on loyalty scanning. Excluded from shopping there, no, not like the handful of Tesco and Amazon shops with scanners for entry. But excluded from the benefit of choosing to shop there in the first place, the benefits previously received by just anyone, definitely.

Would be interesting to see if anyone brings an age discrimination case regarding this, as it now means children cannot purchase meal deals at most of the supermarkets, as loyalty cards are generally exclusively for over 18s. I've certainly seen some Press murmuring about such.

If the railway played its cards right it could turn Railcards into something like this, though I suppose with almost all tickets bought online against an account anyway they don't really need to.

 

[redreni]

All of the major chains except for Aldi, including now Lidl, are widely rolling out price discrimination based on loyalty scanning (i.e no interaction basis, just a higher shelf label price for non-scanners, thus revealing exactly how much your data is worth right there in the shelf edge). Excluded from shopping there, no, not like the handful of Tesco and Amazon shops with scanners for entry. But excluded from the benefit of choosing to shop there in the first place, the benefits previously received by just anyone, definitely. Your description of it as prohibitively expensive is definitely a good one, and far more so than charging £1 for a ToD or whatever.

This is easier to circumvent because you can ask a stranger at the checkout to scan for you to get the lower prices - but the chains accurately guess that most British people will be too awkward to do that.

Well, not really, as it's not exactly a flat percentage premium on everything, is it? It's only on certain items, so the amount you pay not to consent to processing depends on what you're going to buy and on what deterrent pricing, if any, will apply to those items at the time you buy them, which is unknown when you sign up. And it may or may not be bundled with a points scheme, further complicating the calculation.

That's most unclear, and deliberately so. You don't want to tell people their data is only worth one or two percent of their shopping bill, nor how much or how little you may be offering compared to your competitors.

I would regard it as entirely reasonable for the regulator to either

• ban 'consent or pay' altogether on the basis that informed consent is not freely given under that model, or
• require transparent pricing 'i.e. we will buy your data and consent for processing in return for a flat 1.25% discount.'

It wouldn't stop them increasing their base prices in order to fund the discount (meaning it's not really a discount at all), but at least it would be transparent. It might introduce a bit more meaningful competition on price (rather than on who's best at making people feel like they're getting a good deal).

I do agree the potential for discrimination is absolutely enormous. How is a homeless person supposed to navigate this? Or, as @Bletchleyite observes, under 18s.

 

[Starmill]

Well, not really, as it's not exactly a flat percentage premium on everything, is it? It's only on certain items, so the amount you pay not to consent to processing depends on what you're going to buy and on what deterrent pricing, if any, will apply to those items at the time you buy them, which is unknown when you sign up. And it may or may not be bundled with a points scheme, further complicating the calculation.

That's most unclear, and deliberately so. You don't want to tell people their data is only worth one or two percent of their shopping bill, nor how much or how little you may be offering compared to your competitors.

I would regard it as entirely reasonable for the regulator to either

• ban 'consent or pay' altogether on the basis that informed consent is not freely given under that model, or
• require transparent pricing 'i.e. we will buy your data and consent for processing in return for a flat 1.25% discount.'

It wouldn't stop them increasing their base prices in order to fund the discount (meaning it's not really a discount at all), but at least it would be transparent. It might introduce a bit more meaningful competition on price (rather than on who's best at making people feel like they're getting a good deal).

I do agree the potential for discrimination is absolutely enormous. How is a homeless person supposed to navigate this? Or, as @Bletchleyite observes, under 18s.

It's nice and easy to see the saving on your receipt though because they helpfully aggregate it for you. And you know by definition how much you spent, I'd argue it's quite overt. Shameless almost. Sainsbury's even agrregates it for you over the rolling three months in the app! I don't think anyone's really daft enough to believe they're getting a genuine offer from any of this.

Of course the practice is slimy through and through but they've realised it has big profit potential which is the reason nearly every major chain bar Aldi has started doing it. Capping or banning it outright is probably the only control which will work.

How is a homeless person supposed to navigate this?

It is pretty apalling. A homeless person is likely being overcharged massively by Transport for Wales in South Wales or on trains in Berkshire for example because the paper tickets cost so much more than the contactless fare, but there is no e-purse payment option. I think it's apalling that apart from a (very limited) trial with HSBC there hasn't been more effort to get people who are unbanked because they lack permanent address / acceptable ID documents a solution before this price discrimination was rolled out.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The "computer says no" attitude of some staff (usually at station barriers it appears) is the major downside in my view.

But that isn't limited to etickets. I've seen and experienced the same with paper tickets too! So I don't think it's really relevant.

 

[Bikeman78]

Is this the case? Do most people own printers? We haven't had one in a long time, as hardly ever used it. I will occasionally print stuff at work, but not often.

We don't even own a PC or laptop any more, just a tablet.

I haven't had one for years. The last one I had was an inkjet. When I printed flight tickets, the British Airways scanners were unable to read them, even though the written words were perfectly legible. I expect railway ticket scanners would have the same problem.

 

[redreni]

It's nice and easy to see the saving on your receipt though because they helpfully aggregate it for you. And you know by definition how much you spent, I'd argue it's quite overt. Shameless almost. Sainsbury's even agrregates it for you over the rolling three months in the app! I don't think anyone's really daft enough to believe they're getting a genuine offer from any of this.

Of course the practice is slimy through and through but they've realised it has big profit potential which is the reason nearly every major chain bar Aldi has started doing it. Capping or banning it outright is probably the only control which will work.

Whilst I agree it's nice of them to tell you after the fact how much extra they'd have charged you had you not opted to sell your data, though those 'savings' are in my view largely illusory, since in many cases the non-discounted price would have been completely uncompetitive and there's no reason to suppose the customer would necessarily have bought the item at that price.

And it doesn't alter the fact you don't know the real value of the discounts you'll be offered later, even compared to the non-discounted price (let alone compared to the the going rate - often the discount is less than nothing when viewed from that perspective), when you sign up.

It is pretty apalling. A homeless person is likely being overcharged massively by Transport for Wales in South Wales or on trains in Berkshire for example because the paper tickets cost so much more than the contactless fare, but there is no e-purse payment option. I think it's apalling that apart from a (very limited) trial with HSBC there hasn't been more effort to get people who are unbanked because they lack permanent address / acceptable ID documents a solution before this price discrimination was rolled out.

Agreed.

 

[island]

Would be interesting to see if anyone brings an age discrimination case regarding this, as it now means children cannot purchase meal deals at most of the supermarkets, as loyalty cards are generally exclusively for over 18s. I've certainly seen some Press murmuring about such.

I believe there is a carve-out for giving different prices by age, although I can't put my hands on the relevant legislative provision right now.

 

[WelshBluebird]

it now means children cannot purchase meal deals at most of the supermarkets, as loyalty cards are generally exclusively for over 18s.

Last I checked meal deals were still available to anyone, it's just you get an extra discount with a loyalty card.

 

[Bikeman78]

Quite so. See also, words to the effect of "GBR will sort all this out".

Maybe we should compare notes in five years and see how much has been "sorted out." I suspect the result will be similar to the amount of third rail that has been converted to OHL!

 

[cool110]

Would be interesting to see if anyone brings an age discrimination case regarding this, as it now means children cannot purchase meal deals at most of the supermarkets, as loyalty cards are generally exclusively for over 18s.

With Tesco the T&Cs state that while the main cardholder must be over 18, secondary cards can be used by any person living at the same address.