23 May 2018


Retired Member

3,590Posts 13,905,162Views 4,373Comments
A post relating to this item from Finextra:

US Bank pilots NFC iPhone case

11 January 2013  |  10462 views  |  2
US Bank has chosen Salt Lake City and Portland as test sites for an iPhone case that turns the handset into a contactless payments device.

Nonsense Innovation.

13 January 2013  |  3869 views  |  2

I am continually baffled by these people with fancy titles like Chief Innovations Officer who announce the deployment of "gimmicks" and say they are wonderful new technology breakthroughs, and oh yes... Secure.

Rubbish. NFC is not secure in it's present form. And tell me, what prevents someone else using my phone to "Pay and Run" ?

Just like what prevents someone else from taking my pay and go or wave and (all the same nonsense) and running rampant around town ?


The Banks preach security, however there is no consumer safety nor security in being able to wave a card or phone without any authentication mechanism. Encrypting a transaction is not security. It is just encrypting data that can come from anywhere and anyone. It is just a Banking rort. 

Mr Chief Innovations Officer, how about being innovative and doing something that actualy provides consumer security.

TagsMobile & onlinePayments

Comments: (3)

Michael Kyritsis
Michael Kyritsis - ACI - London | 15 January, 2013, 00:22

In the same way that there's no security on contactless transactions, there is no security on cash. If I leave my wallet lying around in order for someone to have a chance of taking one of my cards, I'm sure they would take any cash I have in my wallet too. There are limits on what can be spent - a per-transaction limit (in the UK it's £20) and also a limit on the number of consecutive contactless transactions the card will allow before it forces fall-forward (I think it's typically 5) but most consumers would never be forced to fall-forward because they use their cards for both contactless and contact- payments (which resets that counter).

Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 thumb ups! (Log in to thumb up)
A Finextra member
A Finextra member | 15 January, 2013, 08:53

Hi Michael,

I agree with some of your comments, but shouldn't technology improve security rather than be as bad as a very old alternative?

Also, most customersdon't run up against the offline transaction limit, because they don't use contactless - the take up statistics prove this out.

The original blog is very true, there is a lot of hype around some very dubious technology much of which is poorly thought through from a security perspective. Take mobile banking and payments. How many organisations offering these facilities are actively pushing you to make  your mobile as secure as your PC?

Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 thumb ups! (Log in to thumb up)
Ketharaman Swaminathan
Ketharaman Swaminathan - GTM360 Marketing Solutions - Pune | 16 January, 2013, 13:11

If a leading bank like US BANK chooses to introduce such an NFC solution, maybe it suggests that there's a strong consumer demand for mobile payments that the bank is trying to capitalize upon instead of missing the bus by waiting for Apple to include NFC on the iPhone. I've myself highlighted the clear and present danger with NFC in this Finextra post, so there's no denying that US BANK's solution is not so secure. But, the real question here is, does the average John / Jane Doe care about security when they get convenience? This question is especially relevant in the USA where the following predominantly American practices suggest that convenience trumps security in this market: (a) There are payment methods such as ACH TEL which permit one person to pull out money from another person's bank account without any written mandate from the latter (b) Millions of people have shared their Internet Banking credentials with BillGuard, Mint and other financial services startups (c) Few, if any, ecommerce companies have implemented 2FA for online payments, fearing - rightly, if I might add - that the resultant friction might result in shopping cart abandonment and loss of revenues.

Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 thumb ups! (Log in to thumb up)
Comment on this story (membership required)

Retired's profile

job title
member since 2014
Summary profile See full profile »

Retired's expertise

Member since 2009
3573 posts4,373 comments
What Retired reads

Who's commenting on Retired's posts

Pooja Golakonda
Behzod Sabirov
Ketharaman Swaminathan
Melvin Haskins
James Treacher
Kenneth Marritt
Mark Santall
Willem Lambrechts
Edward Sutton