Is it practical to have such things imbedded within the hand? I'm thinking of practical purposes.
Cyborg fined for riding train without valid ticket
A self-described “cyborg” who slipped a public transport smartcard under his skin has pled guilty to riding trains without a valid ticket and copped a fine, plus costs. Meow-Ludo Disco Gamma Meow-Meow, the chap’s actual name, claims to be a bio-hacker and, as we wrote in 2017, wanted to pay for train journeys with a wave of …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 16th March 2018 10:31 GMT Anonymous Coward
How does that work with a debit card and a credit card, both with contactless chip?
Depends how the reader is coded. I've seen some use pre coded logic to choose a card from whatever are in range, others that refuse to process any card if there's multiple valid cards. That "pre coded logic" probably isn't as clever as it sounds, being most likely just taking payment from the first card that it recognises as valid.
Some readers also appear confused when presented with a range of contactless cards for different purposes, others appear to be able to differentiate.
-
Thursday 5th April 2018 11:16 GMT kiwimuso
@ac
"How does that work with a debit card and a credit card, both with contactless chip?"
Ha. Ha. You need separate cards for debit & credit? How quaint.
I have a single card used for either. At the time of the transaction I choose which I shall use for payment, bank account or credit card.
Very eco-friendly as well (if we're going down that route) as one bit of plastic less for landfill when it expires.
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 16th March 2018 04:12 GMT corestore
A breach of the terms of use should NOT be a criminal offence! He DID pay the fare and DID have a valid ticket; it just wasn't in the conventional form. But you can't tell *anything* about an NFC chip by *looking at it*; only by scanning it - which the ticket inspectors could easily have done, if they had wished to do so. Astonished he pleaded guilty.
-
Friday 16th March 2018 07:35 GMT TRT
The card itself may have contained other security features such as a holosticker or a serial number in human readable form. Inspection is more than just scanning an RFID. It's the transit authority's ticket - they can set the rules about how you use it. The breaking the law bit, in the UK at least, comes from the railway by-laws incorporated into the Transport Act 2000 - being on railway premises in a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket. In the UK a ticket bought with a discount, using an annual Gold Card for example, is only valid with the associated photo ID; even if you've paid the fare if you forget the Gold Card & ID, the ticket's not valid.
-
Friday 16th March 2018 08:49 GMT Adam 1
> The card itself may have contained other security features such as a holosticker or a serial number in human readable form.
It doesn't. It has the word adult, the opal logo and the new government logo on it. On the back is the remember to tap off message, phone numbers, website, the card number and 4 digit security code. Certainly nothing a human can use to spot a forgery.
I would be utterly amazed if security wasn't handled by encrypting the data it holds.
-
Friday 16th March 2018 10:26 GMT TRT
Thanks for the antipodean information...
I've never been to Australia, or seen an Opal card. Thanks for the description.
You, on the other hand, have never worked on or been close to someone who works on a transport system, or else you would know that the look and feel of an official card is part and parcel of spotting forgeries. Typefaces, shades of colouration, position of the logo relative to the edge of the card, areas of raised inking, peeling surfaces etc etc all can clue someone in to a potential forgery. I've seen National Rail tickets that have been confiscated as forgeries and some are very good, identical to genuine barring a spelling error on one part (that took me about 30 minutes to spot whereas for my friend who does this day in day out, it popped out like a red spot in a green field), others that are utterly laughable and would barely pass for real if flashed to a myopic, cataract ridden, disinterested member of staff in a thick fog at night.
-
Friday 16th March 2018 11:34 GMT ibmalone
Re: Thanks for the antipodean information...
National rail tickets are one thing, still printed bits of card, but contactless ones are another. If you use an oyster card there's no way a ticket inspector can spot a "forgery", it isn't even a relevant idea when you consider that customers on TFL (including various rail journeys) can also use their banks credit card or phone to pay. The only way the inspector can validate a ticket in those cases is with their NFC reader.
-
Friday 16th March 2018 12:02 GMT TRT
Re: Thanks for the antipodean information...
There are Oyster forgeries. I've seen them. Why isn't it a relevant idea? Bank cards could be forged just as Oyster cards could, and if someone handed me a dodgy looking bank card, I'd be more thorough in checking it and verifying the fare details.
NFC bank cards operate in a different way to Oyster - when your "ticket" is checked they simply at the very least record the information proffered by your device - if it's full and correct to charge a bank account with, and isn't blacklisted, then you're allowed to go on your way. In this mode, the various taps in and out are rationalised by the back end at the end of the day (4am), and the appropriate amount charged.
The lack of a reliable means of contacting the backend for verification of a tap in on a NFC card or device is a hinderance, and a motivation for them putting WiFi in trains and 3G/4G/LTE coverage across as much track as possible. There's another mode of operation where the inspector, who has more time than the gateline machines, can and does sometimes now wait to see if the card proffered by a passenger has actually been recorded as entering the system, but as the device/card has no memory of its own (at least not writeable by a box in a station), they have to wait for the communication to go back to base, be checked, then returned.
It's different to Oyster where the balance is held on the card itself, a pre-set amount is deducted on tap in, the tap in is recorded on the card's memory, if inspected the reader can tell you when and where you tapped in (God help you if you haven't), then using that tap in information the correct fare can be refunded or excess deducted when you tap out. The account details are copied back to the back end for verification later and any discrepancies are updated on the card itself on another occasion.
The point is that the definition of what is a valid ticket can be different for different means of payment. That it's a bit of orange card, a paper-printed ticket, an airline-style card, a QR code on a screen, an Oyster card, a NFC bank card or an iPhone matters little - they will have different definitions of what makes them valid. The purists would argue that the payment itself is what makes it valid, because that is what is common to all the things, but real life isn't like that.
-
Friday 16th March 2018 16:14 GMT ibmalone
Re: Thanks for the antipodean information...
There are Oyster forgeries. I've seen them. Why isn't it a relevant idea? Bank cards could be forged just as Oyster cards could, and if someone handed me a dodgy looking bank card, I'd be more thorough in checking it and verifying the fare details.
It's not a relevant idea because the question is whether you can validate the fare or not. (Ignoring for the moment tangential discussion about proof of entitlement for concession fares, not at all clear that was the case here anyway.) Can you tell if someone's phone is a forgery? Once you are relying on interrogating the card (whether that's stored information on the card or checking against entry records) then how much does it matter what the piece of plastic it's embedded in looks like? People might also be a bit suspicious about a ticket inspector starting to take close interest in the details on their bank card.
-
Saturday 17th March 2018 00:28 GMT TRT
Re: Thanks for the antipodean information...
Because it's to do with the rules. It matters not a jot if the principle is the same, it matters if the rules are being followed. It matters if the TICKET is valid not if the fare has been paid. The fare having been paid is part of but not the same as the ticket being valid. How many ways can I put this?
As an interesting aside, for the last week or so UK transit operators whose services intersect with Virgin train routes have been told, when validating through ticketing, to accept avocados as proof of discount validity for 26-30 year olds.
-
Sunday 18th March 2018 21:58 GMT ibmalone
Re: Thanks for the antipodean information...
Because it's to do with the rules. It matters not a jot if the principle is the same, it matters if the rules are being followed. It matters if the TICKET is valid not if the fare has been paid. The fare having been paid is part of but not the same as the ticket being valid. How many ways can I put this?
That's the thing really, the idea of validity is simply down to the rules and, as you mention can come down to silly stuff like having an avocado. I was going to suggest only valid if whistling La Marseillaise, but Virgin have provided us with an equally ridiculous example. Let's assume in this case the guy was convicted because he didn't have the hallowed plastic surround to the NFC chip, it's not a very interesting question whether or not he did. What is an interesting question is why did they bother going to this trouble? I mean, there's no suggestion he hadn't paid the appropriate fare, why care about the letter of the rules for ticket validity in that case?
There are a number of possibilities. Maybe the transit authority can't actually validate the information on the chip, and rely on the card to say you have a right to be on the journey? That brings me back to the Oyster example, I could trivially (but unconvincingly) fake an Oyster card by cutting out a card from a cereal packet and writing "Oystur" on it in blue crayon. This would obviously not be very useful. I could also obtain a genuine card for £5 from any ticket machine. An inspector looking at this card cannot say it's not genuine, and there is no information recorded on the card directly connected to my journey, though I assume it's possible for someone to look up the serial number in the system. But in practice they hardly ever see the cards they validate with a reader, my Oyster is always in a card holder. Obviously if the card doesn't read then we are into the situation of someone trying to blag that they did pay a fare they didn't, but if it does, why care about the surround?
That brings us to possibility number two, the system isn't secure. But for the authenticity of the card to matter (I'm assuming the validity rules are for some rational reason rather than just to provide jobs to clause fetishists) it requires the system to be insecure in a particular way: it is secure enough I can't reprogram or top up the chip in the card, but at the same time uses a system where a different chip that I do control could spoof a genuine one. I can't think of many ways that could come about, except for the card simply reporting an id that's checked against a database or only accepting updates accompanied by some form of credentials.
-
-
-
-
-
Saturday 17th March 2018 11:37 GMT Adam 1
Re: Thanks for the antipodean information...
> You, on the other hand, have never worked on or been close to someone who works on a transport system, or else you would know that the look and feel of an official card is part and parcel of spotting forgeries.
One of us is making some assumptions there. But Let's talk about forgeries for a minute. Do you honestly think that someone is going to go to the effort of getting a fake printed. I mean, wouldn't it be easier to steal a half used box of blank cards from one of those popup kiosk newsagencies and write your fake data to the NFC chip inside it? Then there is no difference that one can garner from typefacing or colour bleeding.
Also, you have an unrealistic understanding about what the transit officers actually do. Four of them board a carriage from both ends, just before the doors close. Two from each side go upstairs. Two go downstairs (stopping someone doing a runner). They then ask to see everyone's card and concession entitlement if it isn't a full fair card. This involves holding a thing that looks like a 6" mobile against everyone's card, getting a bing sound, then giving it back and saying thank you. I have even on one occasion had them validate my card from inside my phone case. They have to get through the 100 people in the carriage between two stops, check concession cards, and usually write up one or two people. They're not sitting there with a black light trying to see if the NFC antenna is in the correct spot or whether it was printed upside down or whether there's an extra petal in the waratah.
-
Saturday 17th March 2018 14:46 GMT TRT
Re: Thanks for the antipodean information...
Yes, I do think someone is going to go to the effort of printing a fake - I've seen them. My friend has shown me them. I've even run a 4-colour printing press capable of producing passable fake credit cards and plastic photo IDs onto plastic blanks in bulk, and that was in 1999. Easily detectable to the touch or with a magnifying loupe as it used a 4-colour process to simulate the solid pantone inks of the genuine articles.
A whole generation of Oyster cards are now invalidated due to poor security implementations. Several generations in fact.
As for revenue inspectors, I can speak only for the UK's TfL and the three mainline TOCs that my son has worked for... as a revenue inspector!
I'm not prepared to go into depth on what would prompt a closer inspection of the ticket, but they don't need to check every ticket, though they do need to be seen to absolutely detect fakes and free loaders and to always collect penalty fares. Their role is primarily deterrent.
-
-
-
-
Friday 16th March 2018 12:06 GMT davidp231
"In the UK a ticket bought with a discount, using an annual Gold Card for example, is only valid with the associated photo ID; even if you've paid the fare if you forget the Gold Card & ID, the ticket's not valid."
And you have to pony up the difference in price if you want to continue your journey.
-
Friday 16th March 2018 13:47 GMT CraPo
> The card itself may have contained other security features such as a holosticker or a serial number in human readable form.
Not sure what country you are from TRT, but in the UK I can gain access to the Transport for London network by using contactless payment, and that inlcudes Apple/Google Pay from my phone via NFC. In this situation (which is likely to become more and more common) the actual card is immaterial. To ensure I have paid the valid fare, ticket inspectors scan the method of payment used to ensure there is a transaction. Having said that, if his card was cancelled and he hadn't tapped in, it is academic anyway.
-
Friday 16th March 2018 13:53 GMT TRT
UK. London.
But the point isn't "How do the prove they've paid", the point is "Do they have a valid ticket?" and there's a world of difference as I pointed out with the Annual Gold Card discount on other ticket purchases. I get 1/3 off a ticket to Manchester if I buy it whilst presenting my Annual Gold Card London commuter card. I can shout and scream and cry until I'm blue in the face, produce banks statements, receipts, little pieces of paper to show that I've paid my fare to Manchester, but if I am not carrying my annual season ticket Gold Card then the ticket isn't valid - further, my Gold Card isn't valid unless THAT is accompanied by the same numbered photo ID card. So I need THREE things before my ticket is valid. OK, I've paid the fare, but that's not enough to make it a valid ticket.
-
Friday 16th March 2018 14:45 GMT CraPo
Woosh, there goes the point flying over your head.
The point being the difference between an Opal card valid ticket and an NFC paid valid ticket. The mechanism is exactly the same; the only difference is the the Sydney transport network adhering to the old fashioned requirement to have the whole ticket, which proves nothing. I see that they are catching up with a contactless trial (although they don't do daily/weekly fare capping like TfL do)
https://www.opal.com.au/en/news/opalnews/news_12March2018.html
So if Mr Cyborg had had a NFC induction loop embedded in his skin and had been travelling on the light rail or ferries, he'd have been totally legal.
-
-
-
-
Friday 16th March 2018 08:25 GMT tip pc
@corestore
For operational reasons like When the nfc readers aren’t working or they are looking for forged or stolen cards (yes I know they could just mark them as stolen in the DB) or other reasons I can’t be bothered to think of, a human needs to read the information printed on the card. That can’t be done if there is no card and only the nfc chip, hence the ticket is not valid, doesn’t matter that the chip is still electronically readable.
-
Monday 19th March 2018 12:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
@corestore
All true. Still, based on the quoted terms of use, I wonder how it might have gone had he managed to implant the entire card under his skin - unaltered and not "defaced"? Would he be obliged to slice his flesh upon demand for visible inspection based on terms not cited in the article?
-
-
Friday 16th March 2018 04:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Did he pay the appropriate fare for the journey?
The whole point of a ticket is for ensuring people pay the correct fare for their journey.
If he paid the correct fare... what the fuck are these people hassling him for?
It sounds like the transit police were just bullies who figured they'd found an excuse.
-
Friday 16th March 2018 05:57 GMT Flocke Kroes
Re: Did he pay the appropriate fare for the journey?
NFC devices are easily available and not that hard to program. If the manufacturers of Opal cards have not made an outstanding effort to secure their device then it may be possible to create an imitation that pretends to hold money you never paid. Being encased in plastic with a pretty picture provides (some) evidence that the chip is genuine and has not been modified.
I can see why these terms of use are important but I would have tried hard to explain this to Mr Meow-Meow and get an out-of-court settlement rather than hope I can explain it to a judge (risky), journalists (probably not) and commentards (perhaps a few here but rest of the world: no chance).
-
Friday 16th March 2018 12:56 GMT Jos V
Re: Did he pay the appropriate fare for the journey?
I think the Ts & Cs are pretty clear on what you can and can't do with an Opal card.
If you get one, and use one, you agree to these, cyborg or not:
https://transportnsw.info/document/2114/opal-terms-of-use.pdf
A good start is reading item 40.
IANAL, but point 82 seems pretty clear:
Acceptance of terms:
By using your Device as a ticket on a public passenger service you agree to be bound by the Terms of Use in force at that time. If you do not agree to be bound, you must refrain from using your Device.
What I (might have) missed from the article is whether or not his "card" was topped up, or if he was indeed traveling without paying. If you want to use PT, pay up.
-
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Saturday 17th March 2018 03:13 GMT Alan Brown
Re: Jenny Agutter wearing that short dress
"Try melting the ice in the condensate drain pipe with a kettle of hot water."
Yeah, that works - for about fifteen minutes, then it just freezes up again.
As a practical matter (as miniBeast is on its way) it's easier to disconnect the drain and attach a temporary hose to a bucket. You can sort out the run so it won't get exposed to freezing weather at a later date.
This kind of thing is an installation FAIL, usually justified by "It doesn't get cold enough to freeze pipes around here mate"
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 16th March 2018 08:08 GMT jake
One wonders ...
Just about every piece of plastic I have gets replaced by the issuing authority on a fairly regular basis, and not just because the original expires, either. One of my credit cards was replaced four times in the space of six months, for no apparent reason other than a new colo(u)r scheme. So one wonders, how many times will people like Mr. Meow have to replace this kind of thing before they become bored? Or is part of the fun building up scar tissue?
-
Friday 16th March 2018 08:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
What a strange chap...
"Meow-Meow explained the story behind his name in an interview with HuffPost Australia last year.
"I was name agnostic. I thought it would be a really interesting experience to change your name because not many people have that experience," he told the website."
Except most women who get married, some men who get married, and a lot of others who just don't like their birth name.
-
Friday 16th March 2018 09:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: What a strange chap...
I don't think he knows what 'agnostic' means in this context. If he didn't give a shit, he wouldn't have felt enough about it to change it.
And as you point out, other people do change their names,... one colleague changed theirs when they changed their gender, so it's often larger life events that cause people to change their name, not agnosticism.
-
-
Friday 16th March 2018 15:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
name like that
screams "attention whore" and pretty much invalidates in everyone's mind, anything else they might attempt to accomplish. Even if that someone hits on, whether accidentally or not, a real genius moment.
the problem with living in a "society" is that "society" has expectations of commonality, common interpretations, morals, and ways of doing things.
You spend too much time trying to piss out of "society" you really gotta be off your rocker to expect that, or ANY "society" to acknowledge or even recognize your presence.
its like people deliberately set themselves up for failure, as failure is seen like a virtue...