I think we'll get there with it, but socially it's currently about as popular as the self-check out line back in 2001 or the self-ordering kiosk at KFC now (which I always use to jump the line while everyone else is standing around.. seriously, why?)
Having them in pubs can be quite dangerous -- the payment part of the transaction is so insignificant I'm sure the whole process fires off my 'free beer?!' neurons every time I walk away from the bar.
Chip and PIN is even worse. My employer gives me a company American Express that has a chip and I got a PIN. Because Amex marks their cards as "signature priority," most places ask for a signature and a lot of unattended kiosks break, even in Europe. I can't even get a chip/PIN debit card.
Why does banking here have to suck so bad compared to every other developed banking system?
Well, you are at KFC. Half the people are putting off the torture for as long as possible, and the other half... well, they're about to willingly eat KFC :-)
Then I noticed the disclaimer (horribly placed; I skipped over it the first time because it looked like a caption text for the banner image): Editor’s note: Simon Black is CEO at London-based Sage Pay.
edit: So, this is a long-form advertisement for a payment processing company. Why do people still read tech crunch?
Also, biometrics for payment? Christ, because payment processing hardware/support/service isn't expensive enough already! And has the past decade of massive privacy violations by both the private and public sectors taught us nothing?
"...will also make fraud virtually impossible..."
I'm pretty sure this line is trotted out every time a new payment technology is introduced. But one that's tied to some irrevocable, personally-assigned 'key'... yup: nothing could possibly go wrong there!
I always thought most biometrics vendors were fishy, and this is no exception.
- Because cash is anonymous, and card transaction violate my freedom.
- Because credit card companies charge 2-4%. And therefore raise the prices for everyone.
- Because only cash is legal tender.
> A further benefit for us is that it will give us peace of mind as there will be less concern over having money stolen.
I one steels my purse, I only lose the cash I have at hand. But if one steels my credit card, they can rob my complete bank account. Also credit cards are insecure by design, compared to EuroCheck cards. You do mot even to remember a 4 digit PIN to use them. The card number and expiration date is enough to rob me.
And you think those armoured vehicles that transport the cash away from the shops do it for free?
Hell, I used to work at a pub that had it's staff carry over $100k to the bank every Monday morning, though that amount is arguably grossly irresponsible both from a business perspective and with regards to staff safety.
The author is the CEO of a payment processing company, so distracting from this is pretty much the exclusive reason the article even exists.
The privacy issues of using credit cards is of slightly less concern to me, but is still a valid issue.
And situation of leaving stuff due to lack of cash is actually good for majority of people - you either a) monitor for finances before starting activity that involves payments, and then you do this regularly everywhere. Or b) you learn to discard and don't buy most useless products on the market. It's a win-win.
I agree. My significant other is very poor at handling money but there are so many things companies and banks do to make it easy for them to spend money in a cash-free way. Overdrafts, clothes stores offering a 'card' which give you a discount but then lets you run up a balance, and similar bullshit. It's gotten so bad I'm going to get them a chargecard they put money on at the start of the money and then use like cash..
"By removing cash, you reduce the chances of becoming a target of crime"
Reality:
"By removing cash, you increase the chances of becoming a tax criminal"
My suspicion is everyone will be a trivially detected tax criminal by design, but if you just vote the right way and keep your head down and avoid offending anyone in power and stay out of politics unless invited, that punishment will never be unleashed. It'll be a form of control. I can do without increased .gov control, we have enough, thanks.
Furthermore I predict we'll pretend the database is closed and private even though it'll be wide open to all .gov and by extension .com. Go to the wrong person's yard sale (perhaps an ex employee), HR will make sure you never get an interview, etc.
Besides, putting an item on the shelf in case you don't have enough cash has another nice feature - an opportunity to think twice if you really need that item in the first place. If you pay too easily, it's harder to save.
