3 ms·

Is this an AI response? I get why people want a de-googled phone. What I don't get is why they would want to use tap to pay, one of the payment methods with inc

by giantg2 2mo ago

Is this an AI response? I get why people want a de-googled phone. What I don't get is why they would want to use tap to pay, one of the payment methods with increased attack vectors.

microtonal 2mo ago
Is this an AI response? No. I hate AI writing, so I never use AI for writing. Randomly throwing in accusations in discussions sucks. I don't think my comment had any of the hallmarks of AI writing either, unless bulleted lists are also not-done these days. I guess I should be happy that people don't recognize me as a non-native speaker anymore?
- chupasaurus 2mo ago
  Nah, some people are just having too much !fun! witch-hunting.
- giantg2 2mo ago
  The accusation was not random. That writing had an AI tone to it with the bulleting etc, and didn't address the actual point being questioned.
  - ddeeo 2mo ago
    It did not have an AI tone, bullet points are not an indicator of AI, and it addressed the point well.
- alekoako2 2mo ago
  [dead]
svpk 2mo ago
> with increased attack vectors. I don't follow. If you mean against fraudulent spending phone based tap to pay is probably the most secure. It demands user authentication (biometric or code) for any transaction so there's no real way to trigger a fraudulent spend without the user knowing. Pretty much any other system allows for at least some amount of unauthorized spending if it's stolen. If you just mean it's less private than I don't really know that it's terribly different than using a card. Especially if the ecosystem were open and you could choose your payment provider and not just have to use Google/apple.
- giantg2 2mo ago
  You might want to look into NGate.
  - the456gamer 2mo ago
    if I’m reading the source I found correctly, that has got nothing to do with Tap and Pay, where a virtual card is stored/emulated on device via the secure element, instead emulating an Contactless reader and relaying a real card pressed up against the device. If anything, this attack is a benefit of mobile payments, where you need a second device to perform the attack with, and the user to use verify themselves for the payment to go through.
close04 2mo ago
> Is this an AI response? Probably not but you’re doing a bad job explaining what wanting to de-google your phone has to do with the choice of wireless payment methods. It’s in the name, “de-googling”, not “de-attack-vectoring”. People want to break away from Google specifically. They’ll still use tap to pay because it’s convenient, secure enough, at least as private as any card/bank payment, and ideally not Google, which was what people de-googling want.
- giantg2 2mo ago
  Well, why do people want to de-google? Likely peivacy and security. There is significant overlap in that reasoning and not doing tap to pay.
  - close04 2mo ago
    > There is significant overlap in that reasoning and not doing tap to pay. Or using a (smart)phone, right? No need to go to extremes, cutting Google specifically is the win because they centralize the “spying”, not cutting the technology. You’re stretching this for no good reason and trying to find a connection that doesn’t exist just to save your argument.

by giantg2 2mo ago

Is this an AI response? I get why people want a de-googled phone. What I don't get is why they would want to use tap to pay, one of the payment methods with increased attack vectors.

microtonal 2mo ago

Is this an AI response? No. I hate AI writing, so I never use AI for writing. Randomly throwing in accusations in discussions sucks. I don't think my comment had any of the hallmarks of AI writing either, unless bulleted lists are also not-done these days. I guess I should be happy that people don't recognize me as a non-native speaker anymore?

chupasaurus 2mo ago
Nah, some people are just having too much !fun! witch-hunting.
giantg2 2mo ago
The accusation was not random. That writing had an AI tone to it with the bulleting etc, and didn't address the actual point being questioned.
- ddeeo 2mo ago
  It did not have an AI tone, bullet points are not an indicator of AI, and it addressed the point well.
alekoako2 2mo ago
[dead]

svpk 2mo ago

> with increased attack vectors. I don't follow. If you mean against fraudulent spending phone based tap to pay is probably the most secure. It demands user authentication (biometric or code) for any transaction so there's no real way to trigger a fraudulent spend without the user knowing. Pretty much any other system allows for at least some amount of unauthorized spending if it's stolen. If you just mean it's less private than I don't really know that it's terribly different than using a card. Especially if the ecosystem were open and you could choose your payment provider and not just have to use Google/apple.

giantg2 2mo ago
You might want to look into NGate.
- the456gamer 2mo ago
  if I’m reading the source I found correctly, that has got nothing to do with Tap and Pay, where a virtual card is stored/emulated on device via the secure element, instead emulating an Contactless reader and relaying a real card pressed up against the device. If anything, this attack is a benefit of mobile payments, where you need a second device to perform the attack with, and the user to use verify themselves for the payment to go through.

close04 2mo ago

> Is this an AI response? Probably not but you’re doing a bad job explaining what wanting to de-google your phone has to do with the choice of wireless payment methods. It’s in the name, “de-googling”, not “de-attack-vectoring”. People want to break away from Google specifically. They’ll still use tap to pay because it’s convenient, secure enough, at least as private as any card/bank payment, and ideally not Google, which was what people de-googling want.

giantg2 2mo ago
Well, why do people want to de-google? Likely peivacy and security. There is significant overlap in that reasoning and not doing tap to pay.
- close04 2mo ago
  > There is significant overlap in that reasoning and not doing tap to pay. Or using a (smart)phone, right? No need to go to extremes, cutting Google specifically is the win because they centralize the “spying”, not cutting the technology. You’re stretching this for no good reason and trying to find a connection that doesn’t exist just to save your argument.