Just me

The recent fiasco with the sold-out Leonard Cohen tickets here in Ottawa certainly raised the cries of “foul”.  Briefly, the situation was that customers were going to the TicketMaster site to buy the tickets, only to be told that there were none left, however, there were many available on TicketMaster’s resale site TicketsNow — although for significantly more than the face value.  There were accusations that TicketMaster was pre-releasing tickets on TicketsNow, or that some were reserved for sale only on TicketsNow or a variety of other possible shenanigans.   Now I don’t believe that TicketMaster would be doing this, they likely sold off all the tickets to online customers…and collected just the face value + dispensing fees.  I do suspect that a significant number of purchases were made by those intent on reselling (through a variety of sites); but from TicketMaster’s perspective, they are just customers.

So I start figrn - what is the “value add” in this middle “resale market” — how is the customer better served by this model?  A model where tickets get quickly scooped up, significantly marked up, and immediately put up for resale?  I’m not sure that there is any value for the customer for the most part.  The model definitely benefits TicketMaster - as they can be guaranteed to sell all the tickets (at face value); and it definitely benefits the resellers in obvious ways.  However, not sure that it really benefits the customer.

If there is no value for the customer, why don’t we simply implement a strategy to stymie the market?  It is possible - even without legislation.  The airlines manage to do it… somehow there aren’t airline tickets available on various sites for super marked up prices….hmmmm…. probably because airline tickets are bound to a name and are difficult to change. Yep. That’s it. (Well… maybe there are other reasons - but bear with me for the sake of the example ;-)  ).

Sooooo… how could we implement this in the concert ticket world?  If we assume the tickets that are being bought for resale are being bought in blocks (i.e.  say 10 tickets at a time), then here is my suggestion:

When tickets are sold, the ticket must either bear the name of the purchaser or the group “leader” (essentially, one person that will be going to the concert with the rest of the ticket holders in the group).

When the tickets are presented for entry at the venue, they must be presented with ID that matches the name on the tickets.  This approach doesn’t require any additional technology at the venue - the ticket taker simply validates the ticket as usual and does a quick name match - comparing the front of the ticket to the ID presented.

BUT….what if some or all of the tickets need to be legitimately re-sold?  For the first case, nothing needs to be done so long as the purchaser or group leader is still going to the concert… the alternate attendees simply join up with the group.  For the second case, a “ticket transfer” option needs to be provided on the website to allow the purchaser or group leader name to be changed on the ticket block.  This could be provided for a fee.

SO….how does this prevent “career resellers” from simply buying single tickets, reselling and then “transferring” these single tickets?  One added restriction that must be built into the website “transfer” capability is a restriction on the number of transfers (let’s say a maximum of three) that may be executed per credit card number.  Thus, even if 100 single tickets are purchased by a “career reseller”, only three of those tickets could be effectively resold.

I believe that this could bring value back to the customer, while still allowing the flexibility to legitimately resell tickets as needed.

Do you think that this could work?

Thanks for receiving!

-s-

I have been meaning to get my say in on this topic for a month now.   With the expiry date looming near on my current Visa card - the pressure is on, and brings this topic to the fore for me.

As with most Canadians, I have been upgraded to the newer smart card / PIN based Visa card.  In general, I am a big fan of paperless transactions and electronic signatures.  I am also a HUGE fan of credit cards… I never have any cash on me, and use my cards for literally everything - they are convenient, provide excellent accounting records, generate “free” travel [1] and protect me from liability against fraud…well, that is, until I received my new card holder agreement from CIBC. As a card holder, you are still afforded the zero liability protection on signature based transactions - the one where you sign the sales slip, and the merchant is required to perform a hand writing analysis to ensure that you are the same person who signed the card; however, based on the way that they have chosen to word the new card holder agreement, there is no liability protection for the card holder on PIN based transactions.  Here’s how my CIBC update reads:

“If a Cardholder fails to comply with any obligation in the section entitled ‘Personal Identification Number (PIN)‘ and someone other than the Cardholder makes any PIN-based Transctions on the Visa Account, the Primary Cardholder will be liable for those Transactions and any interest, fees and losses incurred, to the maximum extent permitted by law.  This applies regardless of whether: (i) the Transactions occurred after a Card was lost or stolen; or (ii) the Transactions were authorized by a Cardholder or not.”

…the section entitled Personal Identification Number (PIN)

“…When choosing a PIN, you will not use all or any part of:

• Your name, or a close relative’s name;
• Your birth date, year of birth, telephone number or address, or a close relative’s;
• A number on your Card, or any other account number;
• A number on any ID card you keep with or near your Card (such as your SIN or driver’s licence number); or
• Any other numbr which can be easily obtained or guessed by someone else.”

OK, so there we have it… I challenge you, as a card holder, to come up with a PIN that does not include ANY PART of neither your driver’s licence NOR your SIN NOR your health card NOR credit card NOR ANY account number you have (gas, hydro, bank, phone, gym, stores, credit, cable/satellite, etc., etc.), NOR your month, day, or year of birth NOR any part of any name of you or a relative NOR etc….etc…etc.

For me, my phone number alone contains the numbers 013456789…everything but the 2.  If I stuck to this measure alone, I could make a PIN of all 2’s.  However, for anyone that knows my phone number, they would know that the number 2 is my only option if i stick by the rules - so the 2 would be easy to guess - so the 2 is ruled out as well.  That, and my wife has a “C” in her name (which equates to 2) and my card has a 2 on it in the expiry date.  So that leaves me with no other numbers to choose from…..

Like come on! They could have saved a tree by not printing the update and simply placing text on the card above the chip that read “no protection”.

In order to retain my zero liability protection that I had prior to the chip - with just signature based transactions - I have popped out the chip from the card to prevent any possibility of a PIN based transaction….until such time as the card holder agreement is made more realistic.

Now, I believe that the chip & PIN based approach is the way to go - and I for one am ready to move, but the banks need to add in a level of “reasonableness” into their agreements and not hold the consumer hostage. I can see the future headline now: “Chip and PIN based credit cards reduce cost of fraud to zero for banks”….which sounds great and progressive, until you read the story to learn about the newly added cost of fraud on the consumer.

What does your agreement say?

Thanks for receiving.
Cheers,
-s-

——————————————————————————————–
1. Yes, the fees are going up for merchants, and the cost of goods subsidizes my miles — perhaps we shall leave that discussion until later.

Old news by now… but I have been stewing on this for a while…  I am a Bell user, but have an unlimited text package, so this doesn’t affect me directly — but that won’t stop me from calling out a solution or two to solve the problem… 

First, as the court case in Quebec is stating, a subscriber should not be charged for use that they did not request… I can see it now - the worst enemy of a bell subscriber 613-555-9753 starts emailing 16135559753@txt.bell.ca just to run up their bill…. or alternatively uses the SMS form on the web…. just to cause the user financial pain.

If the carriers are going to charge for incoming text, they need to provide a means for the user to control WHICH messages the user will / will not accept.  RIght now, you might be able to ask the carrier to NOT send ANY text messages - which would save the user the risk of paying for unwanted texts…. BUT, this all or nothing option really doesn’t fit with user needs.  The user won’t mind paying for service that they request to use; thus give the user control over which messages to receive.

The carriers need to allow something along the lines of the following options:

1) allow the user to set up a profile with Bell (ie. oinline account management) that specifies which originating phone numbers or email addresses from which they will accept texts; or,

2) send only the “From” portion of the message to the phone; the user can then choose to read the message (via a link in the short message back to the remainder of the text).  Only if the user chooses to read the message are they charged the incoming message fee.  (Note: this would require some rework on the SMS message process on the carrier’s end, as well as may put limits on which phones will work with this model — ie. those that can receive web links in SMS messages).  This approach is exactly the same approach used for voice calls — the user can see the incoming caller id (originating phone number) and can then chose to or not to answer the call.  All calls come to the phone, but the user is only charged for those that they choose to receive (answer).

…and once again, I yield the balance of my soap box time to the carriers to respond

Thanks for receiving.

-s-

Like so many, I have to make comment on OC Transpo’s route planning… in this case, at the brand new park and ride at Strandherd in Barhaven. Three buses serve this transit station - 71, 73, and 95. The implementation of the 95 is actually quite good (in lieu of the completion of the transit road along the rail line right of way) — however, the express service out of this station is questionable.

If the goal of transit stations, the transitway and express transit is to get downtown as conveniently and as fast as possible — then this new station fails miserably.

First, the plain “95 downtown” departs on one side of the station headed towards downtown; while the “71 downtown” & “73 downtown” depart from the other side of the station headed AWAY from downtown. If one wants to catch the “first” bus to downtown, one has to play this game of standing at the cross walk to be ready to dart to the other side in case the “other” bus comes in first. Like every other transit station and as the website indicates, all downtown buses should depart from the east side
platform — headed towards downtown.

Second, the 71 departs the transit station only to take a scenic tour through the shopping plaza before heading towards downtown; while the 73 departs the transit station to take a winding tour through a western neighbourhood only to pass right by the transit station again (without a stop) on its way downtown. Both of these routes should pick up at the transit station only when they are actually headed to
downtown (ie. only AFTER they have completed their local/scenic portion of their run).

Attached are the route proposals that offer the exact same coverage but also address the gaps in the basic transitway/express bus principles. Let’s hope that this thinking will become their thinking.

Thanks for receiving!

-s-

Yep…even with garbage…there’s got to be a better way to collect it.  OK, before anyone says I am missing the obvious — yes, the best practice here is to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle;  But let’s consider the cases where there is garbage and recycle sitting at the street.

As seems to be a theme in my life, this was prompted by yesterday morning’s CBC news….the city of Ottawa wants to reduce garbage pick-up to only once every two weeks - primarily due to the cost of fuel increases. Oddly, before this news item, I had already been thinking about garbage collection for a few months; and was comparing it with mail delivery.  I live in the country and have rural mail delivery at the end of the driveway.  The thing is, when we moved out here and spoke with the postmaster regarding setting up our mailbox, we were told very clearly that the mail box had to be on a certain side of the road; this is because the mail truck only drives down the road ONCE in ONE direction.  I take this method of operation and link it to garbage collection…

The garbage trucks make TWO passes down a road; first on one side,  then back on another.  Why can’t we take the same approach as the post office?  Each resident is informed on which side of the road their garbage/recylce must be placed.  This model reduces the garbage truck travel nearly in half (not counting trip costs to/from the dump - we’ll assume for now that this is already optimized),  whlie the total potential effort difference for the resident is thirty feet - if they have to place their stuff on the opposite side of the road.

There may be some implementation details to work out - but in the interest of “green” (environment and money), we should be able to overcome these.  Some figrn on some of these:

• one neighbour always has the garbage in front of their house/property
  - while perhaps a little confusing, the city could run an “odd/even” schedule, rotating the side of the street on which garbage is placed (we already to a rotation between blue/black box recycle)
• my garbage gets torn open by a critter, all over my neighbour’s lawn
  - garbage must be placed in garbage bins/pails so they can’t be torn open; similar to california and other places where garbage is placed in standard bins to allow pick-up automation.
• “across” the street there is no place to place garbage; the street can’t be crossed; etc.
  - special cases will likely exist, and will need to be reviewed individually
• leaving garbage out across the road in the winter, especially where there is no driveway across the road, could result in the garbage being snow plowed into the ditch.
  - this happens even with garbage left on “my” side of the road - but, the snow plow drivers could be made aware of the garbage days and street sides (it would likely be obvious) and they need to work to avoid garbage left out.

Now this approach may be best suited initially to rural garbage/recycle collection but can likely be implemented with ease in many urban neighbourhoods as well.

Well…thanks for receiving!

-s-

Today there was a piece on CBC radio about credit card fraud, which jogged my mind on my ideas. I always have ideas

I have a CIBC Visa card… CIBC allows you to set up spending and questionable activity alerts - which will send you an SMS or email message if their system detects suspicious activity. A cute service… but, in my books, not really effective at preventing misuse of your card/number…and in some cases, even a pain.

Regarding pain — an example:

I went to Esso and used my SpeedPass(tm) - which is linked to my CIBC Visa - at the pump and filled up my tank…60 some dollars… no problem. Then, I went inside to buy a bottle of juice, again with my SpeedPass. It was declined, call for authorization. ??? So I call, and was told that it was declined because the Visa (via the Pass) was first used for an unattended transaction (the automated pump), then shortly there after used for an attended transaction (with the clerk at the cash) — I was further informed that it is a typical test used by theives; check the card’s validity at the unattended point first, then go for an attended transaction. I sigh, and roll my eyes. Oddly CIBC would allow a nearly $70 transaction, and then decline a $2.36 transaction??? Makes no sense to me.

So - where’s the figrn you ask…. Here it is:

Why does Visa (and others) not simply allow a cardholder to go online and establish their own “rules” on their spending on their card(s)? Eg.

• Maximum allowed single charge
• Maximum spending per day
• Allowed merchants: by merchant number
• Allowed shopping zone: by postal code
• Allowed merchant type: eg. pharmacy, gas station, grocery store, hardware store, etc.

Then, provide a wireless interface allowing you to quickly login and over ride / turn off your rules temporarily for a special transaction; or, on a transaction exception, Visa could send a txt to your phone to ask you to reply to confirm to allow the transaction.

90% of my credit card use seems to be consistently bound to perhaps a dozen or so merchants - so setting up a merchant based restriction alone would protect my card from a lot of potential misuse….especially online.

Yes, there is Verified by Visa(tm) and similar programs for online use — but this doesn’t leap to brick and mortar use. Yes, EVM cards are coming for brick and mortar use — but I am not sure if this can make the leap to online use…. putting the above simple controls in place allows strong control in both worlds.

Thanks for receiving.

-s-

I was chatting with my good friend Ken about “figrn”…and he told me about one of his ideas — which I have to say is an excellent idea. One of his friends in the government mentioned how the government has been trying to figure out how to legislate and enforce laws regarding cell phone use while driving — and to date nothing practical has come to light. Ken’s suggestion was simply an amendment to insurance policy coverage clauses: when an auto accident occurs, the police request the drivers’ cell phone numbers…if a call was active at the time of the accident, then insurance does not provide coverage to the respective person. This puts the risk and responsibility on the driver / policy holder. Neat idea.

Thanks for receiving.

-s-

The new contact EVM card trial in Kitchener/Waterloo has been successful, and banks will be rolling out the new contact EVM cards (like the France Carte Bleu cards) by 2010 - on your current card’s expiry. I suspect that these will all be contactless cards as well (PayWave, PayPass, etc)… Now, if they are contactless…. the following gives food for thought….

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/hackers-crack-l.html#more

Although, the encryption/protocols are apparently older (weaker(?)) in the Oyster cards…. it does shed concern…..

As one poster says though, I still don’t understand how they managed to pull the encryption key(s)?

Thanks for receiving.

On the topic of the recent bust of thieves that had swapped out a dozen or so Interac(tm) swipe hand sets from small stores, and replaced them with mod’ed ones that capture card+pin #’s…. A spokesperson for the industry said that the stores need to secure the units much like they would their cash drawer, etc…. Well… here is my question for the industry….

If they insist that the units must be secured, then why do they ALWAYS make the hand units with an external standard RJ-11 connector??? Like come on — if they wanted to prevent hand units from being swapped, then make them:
1) with the RJ-11 connector INSIDE the case, so one must UNSCREW or UNLOCK the case to disconnect to swap
2) with a built in peizo-electric speaker (think home smoke alarm) whereby if the unit is disconnected, it squeals

OK, I end my rant. Oh, except, that to retrofit such protections would be easy and trivial….
1) carve two small notches at the seam of the case, pass the wire thru one into the case and out the other, screw case together
2) put the piezo, a relay, and the proper resistance test, and an RJ11 pass thru (could be made for $1) on the base unit

The larger, bolted down, fancy swipe units/readers you see in big box & grocery stores do resolve this issue — but for the mom & pop shops…something can still be done.

While the industry may be justified in putting some blame on the user, the industry should also pause to see if something simple can be done to improve the situation  (see free solution above)  

Thanks for receiving