Unless of course you're flogging them. If it is secure - why the low limit?
Of course if you allude that it is secure and ask the consumer they all want to appear bright by answering 'Convenience'. Unfortunately it is unlikely to be very convenient and even less so when the obvious happens. Ask the consumer - "They wouldn't introduce
it if it wasn't safe, would they?"
Mobile phones have fortunately become so cheap that thieves don't really want to steal them anymore, despite the best efforts of the Telcos making it easy, and we know they could prevent our stolen phones from being connected by thieves. But what is ethics
or morals when a stolen phone equals another phone sale to replace it, and hopefully an onerous contract thrown in?
When Commbank announced their local foray into contactless payments we surveyed merchants. Most of them felt that it was pretty useless with the low limit and would not assist sales at all, rather it was likely to diminish them. The $35 limit placed on the
local contactless test was less than the average spent at a bottle shop for instance. I don't remember getting out of the fruiterers lately for less than that either.
It suddenly turns your mobile into something desirable for a thief, say at least £100 before the accountholder can stop the account. Then comes the inconvenience. It also opens the door to a little bit of easy fraud on the part of the accountholder.
Go ahead, make your mobile attractive to thieves.
These systems are pushed by those with little to lose and apparently no ethics. Time will tell. at least it's not my billions they're investing in the dodgy 'infrastructure'.