On 15 Jul, 23:48, asdf <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:41:02 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
> >>Having to re-apply for a pass is a disadvantage. Why can't
> >>replacements just be sent out automatically?
>
> >Maybe they don't know which passes were used on Saturday morning and are
> >therefore disabled?
>
> Surely their giant information-hoovering privacy-invading (etc)
> database has that data?
>
> But even if it doesn't, they could at least have a fast-track
> replacement procedure. Something like: phone a number, give your name,
> and they post out a duplicate pass to the registered address.

This is a guess, and only a guess.

The disabled cards have been put on a blacklist referenced by all
Oyster validators. To keep the storage of such a blacklist small, it
will have the minimum amount of info in it: in other words, only the
id numbers of the blacklisted cards.

The application that generates the blacklist probably generates the
blacklist directly - after all, "it's only ever going to be added to
isn't it?" . So there's no need to record the date on which a card
entered the blacklist. Hence, TfL quite possibly have no way of
knowing when a particular card was blacklisted, and so can't reverse
the operational error. Oops.

It would be sensible for a database somewhere (not the blacklist
itself, which is downloaded to all sorts of memory restricted devices)
to keep records of when a card is blacklisted, and the location it was
last used in.

Alternatively, TfL do have the info, but don't want the bother of
running the report to identify the cards blacklisted on Saturday.

Cheers,

Sid