Community

The article assumes that in the absence of cash the only option is a mobile wallet! Well what about using a credit or a debit card? I'm afraid I can poke holes in the use cases for example "buying a round of drinks in the pub" - please find me one pub that will let me use a mobile wallet, but won't accept cards...

”‘Green’ messaging is fashionable but less compelling to potential adopters.” - I agree 100%, actually if paper were the real issue companies would print on recycled paper.  I do prefer e-statements, for convenience - I can search through them, copy them into spreadsheets to look for trends, etc. And I can access my statements from work or from home when I'm completing my expenses claims.

Any attachments should be password-protected, because emails could be transmitted in the clear from the biller to your ISP. Arguably the biller should give each of its customers the ability to turn password-protection on or off in their profile, and definately any system that requires you to use passwords must allow you to change your password to one of your choosing.

Unless I misread it (twice) the original article states that basic account holders will not be able to use other ATMs - i.e. the transaction will be rejected. Which I think is even worse than charging as the cardholder doesn't even have the choice to accept the charge. I suppose some might upgrade their accounts, and some might switch banks.

This is different to the situation of Heartland, TJX, etc - in which card details were compromised beloning to people who had not signed up for any card services with those companies.

Patco Construction Company signed up for Ocean's banking services and accepted the online banking credentials.

If this gets enough press coverage Ocean might lose a lot of customers, presumably to banks that have implemented multi-factor authentication.

Isn't this missing the point: "supports all NFC features including battery off, tag reading and peer-to-peer" ...the main feature of NFC, opposed to contactless stickers, is that the screen and keyboard of the mobile phone can be used for authenticattion, which doesn't seem to be indicated here...

Dear Peter, you've ignored a significant additional cost: assuming you're not proposing to hold up the online authorisation with SMS messages (as pointed out above the entire authorisation needs to complete on average in fractions of a second) it means you're suggesting that the cardholder should reply "YES" or "NO" after the auth, but before the transaction is settled (i.e. the Visa BASE II record is processed). Effectively you're giving the cardholder the ability to initiate a chargeback, which is an expensive, time consuming process as it requires the merchant to retrieve original source documents, and submit them (sometimes via fax).