Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hands on with Apple Pay Competitor CurrentC

johnszumski.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: Hands on with Apple Pay Competitor CurrentC

#31

Post by ska »

untog wrote: post #12
jimkri wrote: post #10

I really don't understand what the companies involved with MCX are thinking. They build an app that is going in the opposite direction of where the market is heading and limit the amount of payments they accept. I was in line at 7-11 at my university, where an girl was trying to use the currentc app. She was 2 people ahead of me, when I went up to pay she was still trying to pay with the app. At first her screen was…

A clue to what the companies are thinking from the article: "Its payments are also routed from the retailer to the ACH system instead of the credit card system, which saves retailers from having to pay interchange fees (typically around 2% of the transaction amount)"

Isn't this the entire point of the exercise? It certainly doesn't seem to be about consumers.

Re: Hands on with Apple Pay Competitor CurrentC

#32

Post by prplhaz4 »

Did more research - it seems like this article is wrong about fraud liability (in addition to QR tokenization). There are plenty of things wrong with CurrentC, no need to make stuff up...

To further protect CurrentC™ consumers, our zero-liability policy protects consumers in the event unauthorized or fraudulent charges are made to their checking account as a result of unauthorized ACH transactions processed through BIM.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mcx-adds-bim-guaranteed-ach-17...

Re: Hands on with Apple Pay Competitor CurrentC

#33

Post by Veratyr »

mikeash wrote: post #30
Veratyr wrote: post #18

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…

I 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…

Yes, 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.

Re: Hands on with Apple Pay Competitor CurrentC

#34

Post by glhaynes »

chasing wrote: post #29

Just the name ("CurrentC") seems like it's going to lead to numerous Who's-On-First kinds of interactions... A: "Do you take CurrentC?" B: "Of course we take currency." A: [Pulls out CurrentC app.] B: "Oh, no. We don't do that." Might do better if it sounded distinct when spoken. Like "Apple Pay." A: "Do you take Apple Pay?" B: "No, we only accept payments in currency, not in fruit." A: [Pulls out CurrentC app.] B: "…

First time I tried Apple Pay in a McDonald's drive thru I ended up with an apple pie added to my order.

Re: Hands on with Apple Pay Competitor CurrentC

#35

Post by mikeash »

Veratyr wrote: post #33
mikeash wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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…

Yes, 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…

It'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.

Re: Hands on with Apple Pay Competitor CurrentC

#36

Post by mfringel »

prplhaz4 wrote: post #32

Did more research - it seems like this article is wrong about fraud liability (in addition to QR tokenization). There are plenty of things wrong with CurrentC, no need to make stuff up... To further protect CurrentC™ consumers, our zero-liability policy protects consumers in the event unauthorized or fraudulent charges are made to their checking account as a result of unauthorized ACH transactions processed through B…

Even with a zero-liability policy, the money is coming directly out of your bank account, and will be put back in eventually, after investigation.

Since the only person that's out money is you, no one has financial incentive to speed the process.

Re: Hands on with Apple Pay Competitor CurrentC

#37

Post by Veratyr »

mikeash wrote: post #35
Veratyr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, 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…

It'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…

That'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.

Re: Hands on with Apple Pay Competitor CurrentC

#38

Post by mikeash »

Veratyr wrote: post #37
mikeash wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'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…

That'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,…

That certainly does sound better for fraud, but that's just a policy choice, not anything inherent to NFC or EMV. NFC could be without limits (I think that's how it is in the US) and EMV could require a PIN (as is typically the case in Europe).

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of different types of credit card fraud. How much fraud is physically stolen card versus copied card versus online purchases? I have no real idea myself.

Re: Hands on with Apple Pay Competitor CurrentC

#39

Post by feld »

mikeash wrote: post #30
Veratyr wrote: post #18

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…

I 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…

NFC they just need my stolen card

Apple Pay they need to steal my phone, hope I haven't remotely wiped Apple Pay, and know my long passcode or have my fingerprint

Re: Hands on with Apple Pay Competitor CurrentC

#40

Post by macavity23 »

DaveWalk wrote: post #24
sarahprobono wrote: post #2

I have to say, just because of the privacy implications, I'm much more inclined to use Apple Pay than CurrentC.

I'm not an Apple Pay user -- is their privacy policy any good? Does it not collect metadata? The article highlights CurrentC's brazen lack of privacy. From their policy: > We share your information across our network of merchants and with our third party service providers. MCX may share...To third-party analytic providers and advertising partners to help us deliver, track and analyze the operations and effectiveness…

Apple Pay's privacy is much better. AIUI:

Apple knows nothing about your cards (they are all encrypted on-device), and nothing about your transaction except that there was A transaction (since Apple just sees a token that gets passed from you to the card provider).

The merchant doesn't see your real cc number, just a one-use token. So they can't track you unless you choose to add a loyalty card.

The card provider sees all details of the transaction. Just as now, and what you want.

And the real cc details are stored in dedicated silicon on a fingerprint-locked device.

Post reply on HN