Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Encryption Transportation

Cracking Atlanta Subway's Poorly-Encrypted RFID Smart Cards Is a Breeze, Part II 170

Posted by timothy
from the connecting-supply-and-demand dept.
McGruber (1417641) writes In December 2013, Slashdot reported the arrest of seven metro Atlanta residents for allegedly selling counterfeit MARTA Breeze cards, stored-value smart cards that passengers use as part of an automated fare collection system on Atlanta's subway. Now, six months later (June 2014), the seven suspects have finally been indicted. According to the indictment, the co-conspirators purchased legitimate Breeze cards for $1, then fraudulently placed unlimited or monthly rides on the cards. They then sold the fraudulent cards to MARTA riders for a discounted cash price. Distributors of the fraudulent cards were stationed at several subway stations. The indictment claims that the ring called their organization the "Underground Railroad."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cracking Atlanta Subway's Poorly-Encrypted RFID Smart Cards Is a Breeze, Part II

Comments Filter:
  • Not counterfeit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2014 @01:39PM (#47341207)

    The cards were original, not counterfeit.

  • Real story (Score:5, Funny)

    by linebackn (131821) on Saturday June 28, 2014 @02:37PM (#47341437)

    I think the real story here is that someone in Atlanta figured out how to use a computer. :P

    • I think the real story here is that someone in Atlanta figured out how to use a computer. :P

      Nah, it's MARTA. If the did figure out how to use a computer they'd just use to figure how to make the service suck even more.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2014 @02:50PM (#47341499)

    I think Atlanta should try to learn from this situation.

    They found the REAL value of the transit system. The price people were willing to purchase the "counterfeit" cards is much closer to what the general public is willing to pay for "legitimate" cards and they will probably have more riders at that price and as a result, more revenue. Adjust your costs to fit this selling price instead of running things the other way around.

    They can probably even learn a thing or two about the ring's distribution system.

    • by Karmashock (2415832) on Saturday June 28, 2014 @03:06PM (#47341573)

      mass transit is already hugely subsidized...

      The "price" of a good in a market is not merely what people want to pay for it. For example, how many people would buy a yacht for 100 dollars? Probably a lot more then buy one now at its current price of about 10 million to 100 million dollars depending on how big it is... but can you charge 100 dollars to sell yachets? No... you won't even break even on the costs.

      And that is a major issue in mass transit. Most mass transit systems do NOT break even after collecting all the tickets and passes. Nearly all of them must subsidize their costs with taxes. And some of them even take money from federal and state programs because the systems are not actually affordable even using city taxes without adding money from the federal and state governments.

      As such, saying "hey they should just lower prices" is not really rational.

      To actually establish your idea here you'd first have to float the whole system on nothing but those passes and ticket revenue. ZERO subsidization. Then you could charge a market price for those tickets.

      And if the ticket revenue fell below what it cost to build and maintain the system then it would shut down for lack of funding the same way companies do that can't get enough sales to pay for operations.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2014 @03:52PM (#47341725)

        Of course that viewpoint is really nothing more than over-simplified libertarian fantasy. A reasonably implemented subway doesn't just benefit the direct users, it does things like reduce air pollution and increase the utility of the real estate around it. That means that people who don't even use the subway benefit from it and so it is a public good. That's not a dig against libertarians, the smart ones understand public goods. Its only the recent converts who are overzealous in their simplified view of the world who have a problem figuring it out.

        • by dublin (31215)

          Sorry, they are rarely if ever a public good - building roads is almost always far better and more efficient than another multibillion dollar mass transit boondoggle.

          The only thing mass transit (especially "urban rail") excels at is creating the perfect environment for increasingly large-scale graft and corruption.

          Although there may be one somewhere, I'm not aware of any mass transit system that breaks even on fares, nor am I aware of one whose cost even had the same number of zeroes promised when hoodwinki

      • by Intron (870560)

        mass transit is already hugely subsidized...

        The "price" of a good in a market is not merely what people want to pay for it. For example, how many people would buy a yacht for 100 dollars? Probably a lot more then buy one now at its current price of about 10 million to 100 million dollars depending on how big it is... but can you charge 100 dollars to sell yachets? No... you won't even break even on the costs.

        and yet this is exactly the model for phones and printers. Sell below cost and have a captive revenue stream.

        • by Karmashock (2415832) on Saturday June 28, 2014 @05:57PM (#47342299)

          No it has nothing to do with that.

          Phones make money by collecting a subscription fee that pays off the cost of the phone over the term of the contract.

          Printers make money by charging extra for ink which pay off the cost of the printer of the life of the printer.

          Buses collect no such other fees from customers. Rather, they collect the difference from the general tax funds or by in my opinion robbing national and state road funds.

          The sorry state of many of our bridges is a direct result of cities draining road funds that are paid for by car drivers through gas taxes. Exactly why should my gas taxes go to pay for a bus? The city buses don't even pay the gas tax. They pay no taxes. They pay for nothing. Not their gas. Not their buses. Not the bus drivers. Its nearly all subsidies and that money often comes from over stressed general funds that are forced to underfund more critical services because of the misappropriation of funds. Or the money comes from specialized funds that only exist to fund things like roads and bridges... but now suddenly can't afford to do that because the f'ing buses took all the money. Which is why perpetually we are being told that we don't have enough money in the road fund. This is incorrect. We have plenty of money in the road fund... for roads... and bridges. What we don't have enough money for in the road fund is enough to pay for the newest mass transit project that some slimy politician got green lit ON TOP of the roads and bridges.

          And what do they decide to underfund when that happens? The roads and bridges. Heaven forbid that the stupid buses actually have to pay for anything.

          And don't get me wrong. If cities want to subsidize their mass transit, that is fine. Really. Do whatever you want. But fucking pay for it yourselves rather then stealing from national highway funds or state highway funds or county road funds.

          If its so fucking efficient then why do they keep needing to take other people's money to make it practical? That's something of a logical inconsistency.

          The car drivers are expected to foot the bill while the money they did spend doesn't even go to pay for their services. And when that happens, the same politicians lie to the car drivers and say "oh we just don't have enough money to pay for the roads... you should pay more."... really? Should we pay more? Because since you're already stealing a large portion of the fund for one thing that has nothing to do with driving a car... tell me what else we should be paying with our gas taxes. Possibly education? You think I'm kidding but they've already done that. In California where I live they take a portion of the gas tax and put it towards all sorts of feel good education projects. Which is great... I have nothing against after school programs etc. But don't take it from the fucking gas fund. Bill that to the general fund so the state senate can have a hope in hell of making a sensible budget.

          And this is a problem we have with a lot of projects. The accounting is so confused, conflicted, and outright corrupt in many places that its not possible to make a sensible budget. Exactly what would you base it on? The numbers people are telling you about anything are not accurate. The revenue numbers are wrong. The cost numbers are wrong. All the projection costs are wrong.

          Look... Doubtless I'm sounding like a raving maniac here... fair point. But ladies and gentleman, I'm not wrong... and this sort of thing if we don't get a handle on it will trend us right into being a Banana Republic... and the weather in most of the US is not pleasant enough to make the US competitive as a banana republic. If the US becomes a banana republic, I'm moving to some place where you can actually grow bananas. At least then I've got the bananas.

          In all seriousness... its not sustainable. And things that can't go on forever... don't.

          • by rtb61 (674572) on Saturday June 28, 2014 @07:24PM (#47342575) Homepage

            Keep this in mind before going off on a public transit rant and why should your taxes pay for it when you drive. The more people on that public transit then the less people on the road with you in private vehicles and the less crowded your drive. So your paying public transport taxes to have better access to your roads.

            • I don't think the parent is arguing that taxes shouldn't pay for buses, but rather that the taxes that pay for it shouldn't be the targeted taxes like the gas tax, instead the money to subsidize the buses should come from the general fund, and the subsidy level should be something that people get to have a say in through the election process.

              That's something I can get behind, for the simple reason that using the gas tax to subsidize buses is unsustainable: if it's working correctly it encourages drivers to

            • Not an issue unless you live in an area with unreasonable congestion... and those areas only get that way because of subsidized housing, food, healthcare, transport, etc that make living in unsustainable places marginally affordable.

              It would save a lot of money and be much more sustainable if people would just live in places that they could afford without subsidies. Does that mean the mega cities empty? Yep... they're dinosaurs. They're only viable with subsidies and will only survive so long as the money f

          • by sudon't (580652)

            "If its so fucking efficient then why do they keep needing to take other people's money to make it practical?"

            It's because too many lazy assholes won't get out of their cars and take the bus. And yeah, government funds are inevitably mismanaged. The truth is, most government funds are intermingled, whatever their intended use was. That's why Social Security is "broke." They spent the money on other shit.

            • Wrong. If we got rid of our cars you'd be fucked.

              Even the people that use a lot of mass transit also use taxi cabs. This is especially true in towns where people don't own cars. They literally hire people to drive them around when the mass transit fails to deliver.

              Precisely what is the difference between a taxi cab driving me around and me just driving myself around?

              Want to claim the taxi is more environmentally friendly? It isn't.

              Mass transit only works when people live and work in very predictable concent

      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        mass transit is already hugely subsidized...

        As is automobile travel and air travel and train travel.

        I don't know how much a bicycle is subsidized, but it probably is to a certain extent.

        I would be that a lot more money comes out of the public coffers to subsidized automobile travel than mass transit.

        • by Z00L00K (682162)

          In most of the world the cars and the fuel is taxed enough to not only cover their own costs (roads etc.) but also feed into other parts of the big government sinkhole.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947)

            In most of the world the cars and the fuel is taxed enough to not only cover their own costs (roads etc.) but also feed into other parts of the big government sinkhole.

            Not even close. Does fuel tax cover the costs of the health problems from pollution? They haven't even touched the costs to society from the decades where gasoline had lead in it and the crime and social problems that caused.

            At best, fuel taxes cover the costs of resurfacing a few roads. It doesn't touch new construction of infrastructure.

          • In most of the world the cars and the fuel is taxed enough to not only cover their own costs (roads etc.) but also feed into other parts of the big government sinkhole.

            Not even slightly true. Countries with paved roads are massively subsidising them.

        • Wrong.

          Cars actually generate revenue. They're taxed very heavily and generate more revenue from those taxes then is spent on cars. A large portion of the gas tax for example is diverted for buses, bicycle roads, etc.

          That only goes one way... car drivers do not benefit from taxes on bicycles or buses because neither of those things generate any net tax revenue.

          As to airplanes, they are best subsidized at the rate they are taxed. They have no net drain on the national, state, or city budget. In fact, in many

          • by PopeRatzo (965947)

            Cars actually generate revenue. They're taxed very heavily and generate more revenue from those taxes then is spent on cars. A large portion of the gas tax for example is diverted for buses, bicycle roads, etc.

            The revenue generated by cars does not make a dent in the external costs of automobile travel.

            Everywhere in the US, in every county of every state, automobile travel is subsidized by governments from the town all the way up to the federal gov't.

          • Cars actually generate revenue. They're taxed very heavily and generate more revenue from those taxes then is spent on cars.

            A common misconception.

            http://usa.streetsblog.org/201... [streetsblog.org]

            It's the same the world over. Where roads are paved and maintained, they are heavily subsidized. Rail transport is cheap compared with the subsidies given to private road transport.

            • I'd love to see the accounting on that. As it points out, the gas taxes used to pay for it no problem.

              What exactly changed? You say we didn't raise our gas taxes but do we pay a proportionally lower tax today or are you saying the cost of maintaining the network has gone up?

              And if it has gone up why? Is that due to proportionally more roads today then drivers? While being stuck in traffic it is very hard to argue that the ratio of roads to drivers is more today then it was in the past when the traffic was l

          • by AK Marc (707885)
            And the roads are not paid from gas taxes, but use income tax for most of the construction cost.
        • by dublin (31215)

          Here in Austin, bicycle travel is subsidized to ridiculous degrees - new bicycle lanes are reducing 4-lane roads to two-lane all over town in a blatant and brazen attempt to botch traffic so badly that voters will finally approve the light rail boondoggle the city council has been drooling over for decades.

          The ONLY thing mass transit does well is offer exceptional opportunities for graft, cronyism, and corruption.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947)

            Here in Austin, bicycle travel is subsidized to ridiculous degrees

            By the federal government?

      • by Bitbeard (1665499)
        Hear, hear on the subsidization. In my county, for every dollar spent by a rider, the taxpayer pays two dollars. And it would be worse if we had rail. That's an absurd ratio. If you want to get somewhere, shouldn't you have to pay for it? Sure, public transit is good for the environment, less wear and tear on infrastructure, relieves traffic, etc, but paying TWICE what the rider pays?? No.

        You'd see more public support for mass transit if the subsidization rate was under 50%.
        • by radarskiy (2874255) on Saturday June 28, 2014 @05:02PM (#47342049)

          "shouldn't you have to pay for it?"

          Should the mobility of labor be comparable to the mobility of capital for a rational market to form?

          • Silly you, that idea would require reading... maybe Adam Smith (who says the same thing) or the studies from Norway that demonstrated the advantage their mobility provided in the late 00's.

        • Road transport is heavily subsidized. Are you willing to pay taxes that double your costs for driving your car?

        • In my county, for every dollar spent by a rider, the taxpayer pays two dollars.

          Just read an article about a new bus route being added near where my parents live.

          It is intended, of course, to allow for commutes into metropolitan area nearby...

          So, the article broke down the costs of the system into Federal, State, Local, individual costs. The individual riders of the system were expected to pay ~17% of the cost of the system. The remaining ~83% was covered by taxpayers at various levels.

          Even with that l

        • by rtb61 (674572)

          The problem with funding mass transit is that it must be designed for peak flows ie have sufficient capacity to fulfil demand during morning and afternoon rush hour. Outside of rush hour this capacity whilst still available is largely idle and thus losses money even though during peak transit times it generates a profit. So either adjust work start and finish to distribute demand and make public transit more profitable or just learn to suck it up when in a traffic jam as that will be the norm without publi

          • I'm not 100% convinced it's the cars that are the problem. Sure, there is extra congestion from more cars and there is obviously a limit as to how many road of given width can support, but there are other users of the roads that I think may be the seeds of traffic: Bulk transport vehicles.

            Without their slow acceleration and poor hill performance, the car traffic would be able to move at a fairly constant rate. Instead, whenever one of these vehicles attempts to merge in or climb a hill, its lane becomes

      • You have assumed that any amount of subsidization removes any amount of information from prices but have failed to demonstrate this. If this were true then the system would be no worse off charging no fares whatsoever if the system accepts any subsidy, which is clearly absurd.

        Even if your only goal is to maximize fare box recovery, rejecting any social objectives, it is possible for the optimum fare to be less or more than the current fare. Transit costs include fixed capital costs for infrastructure and eq

      • Yes, you're correct .... but I'd maintain that in most (all?) cases, at least in the USA, they've been doing it wrong.

        For example, do you know what the salary is for a DC metro subway driver? I had no clue until I saw a job posting on one of the govt. job boards. It's in the 6 figures. I'd sure like to know why a $100,000/yr. plus salary is necessary to get someone to operate a metrorail train!

        When you look at what each individual spends to use a personal motor vehicle to commute to/from work each day, i

        • For example, do you know what the salary is for a DC metro subway driver? I had no clue until I saw a job posting on one of the govt. job boards. It's in the 6 figures. I'd sure like to know why a $100,000/yr. plus salary is necessary to get someone to operate a metrorail train!

          False. Their salary is not in 6 figures. The only way they are going to get into six figures is to do a lot of overtime.

          http://greatergreaterwashingto... [greatergre...ington.org]

        • In regards to "it would only work if people did it right"... they say that about everything.

          Seriously... how many things would work if people just did them right.

          Communism? Everything owned by the state or some benevolent cooperative where everyone shares and shares alike like the animals in the Lion King... Circle of life and kumbayah?

          Radical libertarianism? Everything held in private hands but arbitrated via enlightened self interest through competitive and open contract law allowing everyone to get what

      • And that is a major issue in mass transit. Most mass transit systems do NOT break even after collecting all the tickets and passes. Nearly all of them must subsidize their costs with taxes. And some of them even take money from federal and state programs because the systems are not actually affordable even using city taxes without adding money from the federal and state governments.

        Countries with good public transport are pleasanter for everone than countries without them.

        As such, saying "hey they should just lower prices" is not really rational.

        A train or a bus costs about the same per passenger mile whether it is full or empty. The additional fuel for weight is a tiny part of the cost. Thus if the transport service is not running near capacity, it very often DOES make sense to lower ticket prices and get more passengers. Note the success of low-cost airlines vs the traditional airlines.

        And if the ticket revenue fell below what it cost to build and maintain the system then it would shut down for lack of funding the same way companies do that can't get enough sales to pay for operations.

        A very short sighted viewpoint. First of all most of those people that

        • as to places being more pleasant with such things... fine... give me a yacht... it will be cheaper then a mass transit system and I'll find that a great deal more pleasant.

          Give me a yacht now or "I find it more pleasant" is a fucking stupid argument.

          as to airlines versus buses... airlines are mostly entirely self sustaining and self funding enterprises with no need for public investment. Everything is paid for by the people that fly airplanes.

          Tell you what, you lower the cost of airline tickets by 75 percen

          • airlines are mostly entirely self sustaining and self funding enterprises with no need for public investment.

            Also not true. International air travel enjoys massive tax breaks on fuel. Which is a subsidy of that form of travel over all others. And airports are often built with public money.

          • by dave420 (699308)
            You seem to be confusing "everyone" with "you", which isn't surprising as you are clearly a selfish bastard.
            • I love how people that want other people's money seem to think they can call people selfish for protesting the action.

              Why aren't YOU selfish for taking my money? Why am I selfish for wanting to keep it?

              You have a logical problem here... what is your definition of selfish? How do you determine if one person or the other is selfish?

      • by AK Marc (707885)

        Nearly all of them must subsidize their costs with taxes.

        And cars are subsidized. You need to even out the subsidizations, and nobody is pushing for making road vehicles pay their actual share.

        ZERO subsidization. Then you could charge a market price for those tickets.

        Start with killing subsidies for cars. Oh, that's right, you are like the farmers. They vote conservative because they are against welfare, while collecting government money.

      • mass transit is already hugely subsidized...

        Not in Atlanta. There are a lot of politicans scared by "OMG black people in suburbs around white women" who have worked damn hard to prevent subsidization. They even passed laws requiring wasting the federal subsidies (the feds pushed back on that somewhat... now only 1/2 of the dollars are wasted).

        Recently, votes supporting subsidization of the transit system were lost.

        Further, the control is kinda crazy, there are many competing transit options on a county by

        • As to subsidizing things you want more of... then why do you subsidize unemployment?...

          just curious if you've thought that one through or if the logical connections are a surprise to you here.

          Look.. you want to subsidize stuff?... I don't really care. Just keep the population subsidizing it to the population that actually uses it and keep the accounting honest such that you're not playing an accounting version of "where's the marble"... too much of that is a shell game and I have very little patience for it

          • then why do you subsidize unemployment?.

            Well, that's a completely unsubstantiated statement, except for the "Emperor's New Clothes" statement that smart enough people will see it as self-evident.

            Just keep the population subsidizing it to the population that actually uses it

            There's no reason why that would be necessary at all. You just seem to be shifting from a subsidy, to forced government accounting/purchases. Whats the difference between someone a thousand miles away and someone who never uses transi

      • by JDG1980 (2438906)

        And that is a major issue in mass transit. Most mass transit systems do NOT break even after collecting all the tickets and passes. Nearly all of them must subsidize their costs with taxes. And some of them even take money from federal and state programs because the systems are not actually affordable even using city taxes without adding money from the federal and state governments.

        We generally don't expect roads to pay for themselves, so why should we expect that of mass transit?

        • Why should I pay for your mass transit in your city when I don't even live in your state?

          Why is gas tax money diverted to after school programs when we have roads that need repair... and then why does the same government that did that feel it is reasonable to turn around say they need more money for roads after they just emptied the fund to pay for something totally unrelated?

      • by Gim Tom (716904)
        But are not roads and highways also subsidized with taxes. In fact there is talk now of increasing the tax on gasoline since it is not enough to keep the highway trust fund solvent. I don't know about current subsidies, but when the first railroads were built they were subsidized with large land grants to the companies building them. The notion that "the market" is always right and should decide whether anything is done and what the price for it should be is only true for those areas in which it is appli
        • Even if they are it is a zero sum game because you can have a city without mass transit but you can't have a city without roads.

          The Romans had roads... I don't think they had mass transit.

          So with or without mass transit you're going to have roads.

          Roads and cars are also more flexible, offer more direct access, can be used at any time to get nearly anywhere, and the cost of building a road is nothing compared to the cost of building a road/rail AND then sustaining a regular bus/train route on that road.

          They'

      • Public transit should be free.

        • I agree... it should be provided by people like you carrying me around in a palanquin while your sister feeds me peeled grapes.

          Of course it should be free... everything should be free... food, housing, education, healthcare, clothing, internet access, movies, games, sex change operations, penis enlargements, and why not just speed boats.

          I await your sturdy back to carry my ostentatious litter of glory. My feet shall never touch the ground again.

          I can't wait.

      • by 1u3hr (530656)

        Mass transit subsidies are more obvious, but private transport is massively subsidised by the government and community. Roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, etc, etc. Hundreds of billions is spent on road infrastructure. (Some overlap here, but the great proportion is used by private cars.)
        Hundreds of billions on health costs -- car accidents, air pollution.
        Hundreds of billions in wars to secure access to automobile fuel.

        If all the costs of private urban road transport were added up, maybe we could see which

        • If you're going to bill the wars to the cars then you're really digging for a point.

          I might as well bill race riots and the tendency to spawn plagues on cities.

          The wars are no more the result of wars then they were absent before the car existed.

          Did we have wars before the automobile? Yes? Then you have no case. Utterly silly.

          You think if we go all green suddenly 100 thousand years of hominid rivalry will turn into hands across the world kumbayah nirvana?

          I'm sorry... I'm suppressing lots of flames right here

          • by 1u3hr (530656)

            "Did we have wars before the automobile? Yes? Then you have no case. Utterly silly."

            I didn't say ALL wars were about oil, FFS.
            What did I actually say?

            "Hundreds of billions in wars to secure access to automobile fuel."

            • Still irrelevant since we haven't really fought any wars to do that.

              Are you one of those people that thinks the only reason we care about the middle east is the oil?

              We care about that area mostly because they stand in the middle of asia and are frequently batshit insane.

              People often point out that we ignore wars etc in Africa... we can afford to do that because Africa isn't in the middle and as crazy as they might get, they rarely involve the rest of the planet in their nonsense.

              Seriously... I don't know wh

              • by 1u3hr (530656)
                "And really, if you're going to start blaming the automobile for every bad thing that's happened in the 20th" Fuck off with your straw man arguments.
      • There is an interesting question of economics as to what is the true price of something. For instance, when a coal fired plant charges $x for electricity, it also causes health problems for the residents down wind, increases CO2 levels, and a spate of other issues. So the real "price" is paid not by the people burning the coal for electricity, but by society.

        It's the same thing for cars. Cars pollute and enough cars can make a city's air unbreathable. They also can create quality of life issues. Which

        • That's fine, but you're not addressing the cost of anything on the other side.

          You're also not addressing the cost of not burning that coal.

          Lets say the coal plant doesn't burn the coal... and as a result the power it would produce isn't created.

          That means street lights might not be viable in some areas. It means some homes might not be able to have electricity. It means all sorts of machinery and electronics wouldn't be able to get power.

          And you'd have to account for the cost of all those things not happeni

      • Roadways are also hugely subsidized. Fuel taxes and tolls only pay about a quarter of the cost of driving. Roads never break even. All of them subsidize their costs with taxes. Many of them even take money from federal and state programs because communities cannot afford to build them without money from the federal and state governments.

        Why do you insist that mass transit not be subsidized while roadways are?

    • by Z00L00K (682162)

      Not only Atlanta but essentially every major city uses those card systems, and almost everywhere the security is broken.

      The only thing that stops it from making the news is that it's silenced - the public transport companies don't want the information to get leaked that they use a broken system.

    • by imsabbel (611519)

      Thats one of the most moronic statements I have ever seen.

      Aside from the whole "its already subsidized" thing, people bought those cards because they were cheaper, not because they were at some magical "correct" price point.

    • How does that make any sense? I am selling a counterfeit item, of course I am selling it at below retail as there is risk involved for the client, and they must pay with cash as well. That does not mean that the retail price is too high, anymore than someone picking a twenty dollar bill up off the floor has twenty dollars too little in their bank account.
    • As I understand it, taxpayers are already paying the majority of the costs for public transit. Why not just make the fare free, and save on collection costs as well? If more people use it, perhaps the price taxpayers pay per passenger will be lower. Bonus: less petroleum bought from countries that hate us, less congestion, more parking.

  • by Sneftel (15416) on Saturday June 28, 2014 @03:28PM (#47341645)

    The indictment claims that the ring called their organization the "Underground Railroad."

    Srsly, guys, try harder.

    • by DarkOx (621550)

      Why seems like a perfectly reasonable name to me, given what the group does and where they operate.

      I am not an expert by any means but my understanding of the last organization to use that name is they rarely if ever put someone on a train or other railway conveyance at all let alone one that went underground. If anything they should have called themselves "The Discrete Walk North". Which I admit does not have the same ring to it, but is at least better in terms of descriptiveness. I guess it just shows

It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem.

Working...