4 ms·
In Australia retailers have supported NFC in the form of Visa's payWave and Mastercard's PayPass for years now and I've got to say, it's fantastic compared to t
by Veratyr 11y ago
In Australia retailers have supported NFC in the form of Visa's payWave and Mastercard's PayPass for years now and I've got to say, it's fantastic compared to the experience in the US.
Walk into a supermarket/retailer/cinema/restaurant in Melbourne and payment is as simple as waving your card at the terminal. If the purchase is less than ~$100 you don't need to enter a PIN and don't need to sign anything (we outlawed signatures for domestic payments mid last year). It's just done. Visa/Mastercard/banks generally cover any fraudulent purchases using the system so you don't need to worry too much about fraud.
In addition to this, since the US tech companies generally don't appear to have cared about the rest of the world until now, our banks have provided us with contactless payment apps for our phones and unlike the numerous standards being developed in the US, the banks' apps work with the existing payWave/PayPass systems that are already supported.
The reason I'm bringing this up is to show just how behind the US is when it comes to payments. I'm currently living in the Bay Area and the only places I've been able to successfully complete a purchase using a contactless payment method are Office Depot and Whole Foods. Most fast food places don't accept it, most retailers don't accept it, most businesses in general don't accept it. In Melbourne at least nearly everywhere accepts it, from coffee shops to supermarkets to tech retailers.
Even the US's move to EMV is backwards. The country has the second highest credit card fraud rate in the world yet when moving to a "more secure" system, signatures are still being retained as "authentication" or "authorization" despite being literally attached to the back of the card.
The US is fantastic when it comes to technology but when it comes to banking and payments it's incredibly dated and behind.
- pbreit 11y agoMy sense is the superiority of the mag-stripe is a reason why commerce in the USA exceeds the rest of the world. But I would agree that the move to EMV is a step backwards.
- tass 11y agoBig companies like Walmart are fighting adopting new credit card technologies since this is their opportunity to pay less fees. In Australia, fees are typically below 1%. e.g., Visa Australia charges .275% to supermarkets and 0% to charities. http://www.visa.com.au/aboutvisa/interchange/interchange.shtml http://www.visa.com.au/aboutvisa/interchange/interchange.sht... In the USA, it's typically over 1% (see page 7) https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-Interchange-Reimbursement-Fees-2015-April-18.pdf https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-In... On the other hand, this is why Australia hasn't yet adopted Apple Pay. Apple want the same cut of the total transaction, (I think it's 0.15%) which is more than half of the total fees charged in Australia in most cases.
- mikeash 11y agoI don't understand why you praise NFC but condemn EMV on the basis of fraud. In both cases, the possession of some physical item is considered sufficient for authorization. Copying that physical item is sufficiently difficult that it's probably not an avenue for fraud, so you have to actually steal somebody's card. If physical card theft is actually a big deal, then NFC would be just as bad. If it's not a problem and fraud comes from copying the information, then EMV is just as good. No?
- Veratyr 11y agoYes, now that you point it out it does seem odd. The physical presence of the card and lack of authentication are common to both methods but: - NFC reduces risk by limiting transactions to $100. - EMV is slower (much slower) and more cumbersome due to the requirement that a signature still be collected and the card be inserted into the terminal. This takes a minimum of 15-20s while exchanging receipts etc compared to NFC's ~1s. NFC has the same level of security while reducing risk and increasing convenience.
- mikeash 11y agoIt's pretty common not to require a signature on smaller purchases. It depends on the merchant and the card, but most purchases under $50 are just swipe and go. Presumably they'll change to be insert and go. I totally agree with you that NFC wins for convenience and speed. I just don't see much of a security advantage, and it looks to me like EMV should substantially reduce in-person fraud, since you won't be able to copy them the way you can copy magnetic stripes. The card companies seem to think this way, at least: the way they're pushing EMV isn't to require it, but simply to say that if you don't have it and you participate in a fraudulent transaction, you're liable for it.
- Veratyr 11y agoThat's true but it's still possible to make a completely unauthenticated $4000 purchase with a physically stolen US credit card. I didn't mention this earlier but NFC payments over $100 generally only require a PIN be entered but this is a relatively (to signatures) painless process and comes with the benefit of requiring something not printed on the credit card. For small payments, NFC is faster. For large payments, NFC (at least as implemented in Australia, with PIN), is significantly more secure.
- PhantomGremlin 11y agoMost fast food places don't accept it Perhaps adoption varies by region, or perhaps you haven't tried many places. In the Portland Oregon area, McDonalds, Panera, Subway, and Jamba Juice accept Apple Pay.[1] signatures are still being retained as "authentication" Yeah, that's way beyond stupid. [1] Edit: couldn't resist, thought of this too late. Googling seems non-definitive about whether a certain other fast food place accepts Apple Pay. So I'll steal a line from Vincent Vega and say: "I dunno, I didn't go into Burger King."