I have no idea why I'd want to use my phone instead of a card.
There is also some potential increase of security:
Unlike (nearly) every card(*), the phone is a device that has its own display and input interface.
Meaning that you don't need to trust the payment terminal(**).
- No risk of skimmer trying to read you PIN: you're typing it into your own phone, not on the terminal which could have been hacked/modded.
- You can trust the amount displayed (again, you are reading your own phone's screen, so even if the terminal is hacked to display a lower sum and actually bill a higher sum, you'll notive the discrepancies).
Also, the phone has connectivity, which allows out-of-band confirmation for the transaction (***).
Thus, the device is protected against fraud that could menace a classical card.
- hacked terminals showing bogus transaction amounts, or trying to record your PIN.
- hackers trying to relay a transaction (small amount are "tap/swap only": no signature neither PIN asked. It's possible to use a powerful antena pointed at a wireless credit card to remotely use it and relay communication to a terminal).
Saddly, the phones have their own problems:
- they eat batteries like candy (even wireless credit card transaction are remotely powered by the terminal. Whereas a dead phone is dead and can't be used for paying).
- again, they are conencted. Which means that they could be compromised themselves. (Specially since people tend to install tons of crap).
-----
(*): I've seen banks issuing cards used for e-banking that have a build-in screen and keypad. Similar devices are in theory possible on a credit card.
(**): lots of e-banking card reader do exactly that: you can check on the screen what you are asked to sign.
(***): That's a security feature that's also offered by combining classical credit cards and separate connected device. I can be asked to confirm by SMS / by voice call when the bank detects unusual traffic on my credit card.
Why would anyone assume that? How clueless does someone have to be in 2015 to not understand that nothing on the internet is private, ever, in any way. It is a public place. Do not do anything on the internet you would not do in your front lawn.
Even in public stalking is still illegal.
No, HIPPA doesn't cover you plastering your own information all over the internet.
And they SUCKED!
Sega learned the hard way one of the eternal laws of gaming: Gimmicks and buzzwords are a great starter, but they're a poor sticker. They may let you sell a few units, but once the new car smell is off, players will want to, ya know, be able to play their games.
For reference, see all the various recent "real life input" bullshit, from WiiMote to Kinect. MS caught on and realized that gimmicks ain't selling. Let's hope Nintendo will before it's too late.
Well, corporations don't give a shit about their customers, why should their customers give a shit about them? Whoever delivers what I want is who I buy from.
Well, I might reconsider if it's Sony and wonder "ok, how're they gonna screw me over?", but in general...
Just paint the earth white - works during ice ages.
jesus fucking christ.
You speak for everyone?
Please. You speak for 5% of the planet. The other 95% is far too apathetic to give a shit.
Tough to believe the IDGAF factor is that high when it comes to privacy? OK, let me know how many millions of people around the planet refuse to carry a cell phone next month when this hits the evening news.
Honestly, the whole "Climate Change" thing was to explain that "it's not really global warming"; now they want to stop climate change by cooling the earth.
This kind of tampering would be a disaster.
Mental instability, irrationality, and other issues would cause global nuclear destruction. Hostility is a problem. On the other hand, aggression is the driver that prevents the world from stagnating; remove aggression entirely and nobody would even mate, causing a collapse of the human species.
Bullshit (and I say this as a compiler writer). Very few compilers do anything with data layout at all (some JVMs do, to a limited degree, because they live in a closed world) and none outside of a few research projects will replace one data structure with another. What compiler are you using that will replace and XOR linked list or a skip list with something more efficient?
The belief in the compiler as a magic box that can turn a crappy algorithm into a good one is one of the things that a computer science education is meant to disabuse students of.
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.