7 ms·

"The reason we’ve decided not to go down the responsible disclosure path is being strong believers in public transportation being a common good that should be f

• Beltiras 7y ago
  Why would they be? I can see the political argument for the position.
  • dgellow 7y ago
    It's a way to steal from the local community given that public transports are financed mostly by tax money and by tickets (a tax based on your usage of the infrastructure). They present it as if it was a political action. That's rather ironic IMHO. Free public transports just mean that you pay it through another way, and most likely mean that you remove the "use tax", thus increasing the contribution from people who don't actually use public transports.
    • nailer 7y ago
      In one of the Nordic countries (at work so can't do research) they made PT free because ticketing maintenance costs were more expensive than ticket revenue. In other words, free PT could save taxpayers money.
      • Cederfjard 7y ago
        I think you're thinking of Luxemburg, rather than a Nordic country. Apparently some politicians are considering it in Denmark as well though.
    • Mordisquitos 7y ago
      >Free public transports just mean that you pay it through another way, and most likely mean that you remove the "use tax", thus increasing the contribution from people who don't actually use public transports. Absolutely, and that is in fact their political stance. They believe that there should be no use tax on public transport and that people who don't use it should still be responsible for financing it. Their reasoning is probably based on the assertion that public transport causes positive externalities even for non-users, and that the resulting benefit to society as a whole outweighs the purported unfairness against individuals. You may or may not agree, it may or may not be a good policy, but it is a legitimate political stance. A separate issue is whether guerrilla tactics/direct actions such as these can be justified to attain a political goal in a liberal democracy, and yet another debate is whether these methods are even tactically useful in getting closer to their stated goal.
      • dgellow 7y ago
        To be honest, I haven't checked the content of the onion link so I don't know what their position is (or if they even communicate it), I will assume that you're describing their it accurately. > they believe that there should be no use tax on public transport and that people who don't use it should still be responsible for financing it I don't know for Manchester specifically but any public transport I'm familiar with is payed in huge part with tax money, so people who don't use public transports are already paying for it. But not the 100%, instead it's balanced with the use tax. So, is that the contention point, that it should be paid only by tax money? I don't understand what benefits that would bring. With this system, people using public transports the most (thus get the most value) would pay the less (if averaged per trip), how do you balance such a system? Concerning their action, what's the idea behind sharing their exploit other than simplifying the work of free-rider? That it is too expensive to design a use-tax system that works, thus make the 100% government funded solution more attractive?
    • Aeolun 7y ago
      If that is your standpoint any form of activism like this is stealing from the community. On the whole, this is probably one of the least harmful things they could have released publicly.
      • dgellow 7y ago
        > any form of activism like this is stealing from the community Depends the actions you’re thinking about, but I would guess that’s likely to be the case, yes. > On the whole, this is probably one of the least harmful things they could have released publicly. Could you elaborate?
  • chumali 7y ago
    > Why would they be? Because their position is naive and lacks any serious economic or political justification. Even assuming that their beliefs are sincerely held, this would not be the correct course of action to go about inciting change.
    • izietto 7y ago
      It seems to me a political opinion this one too (I'm not parting for whichever)
    • dagw 7y ago
      Because their position is naive and lacks any serious economic or political justification. When was the last time that stopped anybody from taking a political stance? this would not be the correct course of action to go about inciting change See question above.
    • Beltiras 7y ago
      "Blacks should just sit in the back and petition for the law to be changed. There is after all a correct course of action to go about inciting change." I'll grant that the comparison is way out of proportion but would you have held this position in the 60's?
      • lonelappde 7y ago
        "I'm going to steal from the system (including all it's black users) until it stops being racist" is a bad way to fight racism, yes.
    • Aeolun 7y ago
      You may hold a different opinion, but I think this is going to be reasonably effective in making the bus company fix their app.
  • dwild 7y ago
    Simply because looking at vulnerabilities in a ticket system won't actually bring them any closer to actual free public transit. It may bring them more publicity though by the media that will talk about them, but they are also labeling this cause as being the criminal side.... which isn't really good (that's actually the strategy that multiple government use to push their agenda, making the opposite side seems like they are infringing the law).
• geomark 7y ago
  Whenever I see someone talk about something like that being "free" my initial reaction is also that they must be trolling. Sadly, it usually turns out they are not.
  • jimktrains2 7y ago
    Or you're ignoring the plain meaning of "no charge at the point of service".
    • scawf 7y ago
      In some french city, bus have been made "free". It's said that it's a net benefice for everyone: - people move more, because it's free - shop sells more because more people - less cost induced by individual transport (less car on road = less damages, less pollution..)
      • ailideex 7y ago
        It is also said that Jesus was the son of God
      • geomark 7y ago
        As long as you put the word "free" in quotes then I am with you. Although...just to nit pick a little. If you mean less road damage then keep in mind that road damage is proportional to the 4th power of vehicle weight. So buses cause enormously more road damage than cars.
        • perl4ever 7y ago
          Low transaction costs are an essential factor for free markets to function well, so when the government provides services at no charge, just because they are operating at a loss from an accounting perspective doesn't mean they aren't unlocking large amounts of wealth in the private sector. People who claim to like markets tend these days to subscribe to a quasi-religious faith that markets are maintained by some ethereal force rather than human institutions. Free markets are an absolutely vital and fundamental aspect of the wealth and power of the developed world, but they cannot exist in their highest form apart from the centralized machinery that enables people to trust each other and easily buy and sell. If anarcho-libertarians were to break that down, perhaps society could still function at some level, but it would be vastly poorer until everything was rebuilt in some other form.
• crispyporkbites 7y ago
  Get on a bus in the middle of the day and count the number of people paying. I.e those not on benefits, over the age of 18, under the age of 60 etc. Now count how long the bus idles while people line up so the driver can validate their ticket / check they tapped in on their Oyster card. Now add in all of the infrastructure and staff required to collect fees and account for them. Then add in all of the external costs of charging for public transport (more cars, less productivity) The argument for charging isn’t that strong.
  • anticensor 7y ago
    Cost/benefit matrix: Long distance: Paid Urban FDB: Free Urban ADB: Paid
  • chumali 7y ago
    Have you even bothered to check the figures? You mention Oyster cards so I'll assume you're talking about London in which case the operator (TfL) clearly states that "Fares are the single largest source of our income (projected to be 47% in 2019/20)". [0] This income more than covers the operational costs, with the difference being used to support new infrastructure projects and upgrades such as the Elizabeth Line (as well as concessions for students, the elderly, etc). Clearly there is a very strong argument for charging. [0] https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-ar...
    • crispyporkbites 7y ago
      Right but how much of those operating costs go away if you don’t have to charge? And let’s say you scope this only to buses (which are used less by commuters, and have real impacts on the environment) Honestly I think not charging for buses in London would net out positively financially, and be better for all involved (faster, less cars on the road, easier to design buses for disabled access and prams etc.)
      • lonelappde 7y ago
• dwb 7y ago
  "Free" as in "free at the point of use", which is a perfectly valid political position. Obviously they don't think there is zero cost in providing public transportation.
  • crispyporkbites 7y ago
    Depends on how you account for benefits that offset the costs. Obviously you have to pay for fuel, drivers, trains etc. But if they add value to the local economy in excess of the costs then that money gets collected back as tax + benefits to the local people.
• lonelappde 7y ago
  Not trolling, just logically ill-founded socialists. They don't want users to pay but they aren't volunteering to cover the bill.