>"Uh, so you don't already HAVE chips?! My EC card has had them for years. All ATMs use the chip, and magnetic strips only work as a fallback option (though there are safeguards against simply using a copied card without chip)."

None of my USA credit cards have chips.
My Bank of America debit/ATM card also has no chip.

>"I am curious, what are the options for online banking in the US today? When I was a customer of Citibank in the US in 2001, it was just username/password (I had an HBCI encryption chip on my German card then...)"

I can only speak to home/consumer use with Bank of America. They use a login, site image ID, and password for verification. The only other option is that F**KING "Rapport Trusteer" S**T software for MS-Windows-only that takes over your whole computer like a virus. BTW- we are *FORCED* to use that with SunTrust at work and it is a total NIGHTMARE, especially since we are nearly 100% Linux based. I have already recommend to the CFO and CEO we need to change banks because of it.

Being in a holster is no less accessible or slower than being in a pocket.

No, it is not "off", the SCREEN is off, you have to press the button to turn the screen on

+1 informative

Yours is one of the best replies yet. Yes, the idea of having a button or some other technology that confirms intent is what would be needed to "fix" the situation.

If you think it is an exaggeration, then you need to watch the typical people around you. SLOW.

I am always fast, and I can almost guarantee I can use a swipe credit card just as fast as any "phone" user.... unless the cashier puts obstacles in my way...

No credit cards have that because you are talking about a debit card. I will not own a debit card with a credit card logo- it is just ASKING for trouble.

If I want to use a credit card, I use a real credit card- which is using SOMEONE ELSE'S money until I pay for it. There is zero risk of my bank account being instantly drained for who knows how long.

And I will just repeat what I said when they first came out- why do we need this? Swiping a card is not difficult nor time consuming. Yet contactless is more expensive, more complex, and has remote "skimming" possible issues. It is far enough distance to be potentially dangerous, but not enough to be REALLY convenient (like leaving it in your pocket or purse). Meanwhile, the only problem with the old [card] tech has been reliance on magnetic strips that can and do wear out or get erased. So replace them with invisible IR barcodes or something. Or maybe *contact-full* chips that require touching something.

It reminds me of the phone pay-with-phone thing. I have to carry a wallet anyway for ID and other important documents (and yes, cash, which is the ultimate fall-back and non-tracking/anonymous payment method). Yes, I will also carry my phone. So it is somehow faster and more convenient to take my phone out of my holster, turn it "on", unlock it, launch a payment app, enter some stuff, position it correctly on a terminal, press some confirmation keys, turn it back off, and put it back into its holster. That is faster?

Yet we still don't address the MAIN problem with [credit] cards [at least in the USA]- the lack of confidential PIN codes to secure them from unauthorized use- and all us consumers are paying for that. At least I have noticed gas pumps and some other devices asking me for my zip code.... better than nothing I suppose.

And what if you don't and/or can't run Outlook?

>"It constantly amazes me - the two parties have focused the electorate against each other, while they collude in common cause - building and maintaining power."

And spending more money and making the government bigger. Year after year. Decade after decade. They also seem to agree in removing personal liberty in the process.

I call them, collectively, "republicrats" because they are really a lot more the same than different. Nothing will EVER really change until we change the system to allow other parties to actually win seats (like with instant runoff voting and potentially dismantling of the electoral college).

Perhaps you should read any of my several replies in the thread that tells you EXACTLY why it is different. And this has nothing to do with it being Google. It could be ANY company- pick one.

Your accusations are insulting.

Such a tired an non-original argument. There are no cameras pointed at my face at my table in a restaurant or in my meeting at work or in the public bathroom, or at the family reunion at my Uncle's, or on the bus... but there could be with something like Glass.

This is nothing like security video, which is far away, fixed position, non-audio, usually not full motion, not following you around, and not uploaded to Google and the Internet at large en mass. Security video is usually looped and discarded quickly (days to weeks) and automatically when there are no incidents.

Oh, and even though security video is different topic, there *is* public outcry. Perhaps you should first visit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance Then there is the ACLU and the EFF. And the whole drones thing all over the media. And the never ending articles about Britain's video surveillance "big brother" state.

>"Everyone is walking around with their cell phone cameras pointed up at everyone else all the time. Is it just because I live in a college town?"

Must be, because I have never been anywhere where people hold phones up like that unless they are taking a picture or recording video. Otherwise they are held in a totally different way- cradling in one hand, at an angle, ready for the other hand to control.

Well, we will have to wait for that day. One problem at a time...

And surveillance cameras are typically far away from the subjects and also not recording audio. They also don't follow you around or go into bathrooms either.

>"I think this is the exact kind of reaction people from 20 years ago would have if you told them about today's social media."

And you know what? A lot of people still do find much of "social media" to be rude, invasive, privacy-eroding, and detrimental. Even some people that actively use it.

The issues were valid then. And they are still valid now. Do people get used to their privacy and freedom being eroded? Yes, that is certainly true.

>"They just need it to have a "recording" light, like a webcam. Problem solved."

Is it? What prevents the user from disabling it through settings, software hacks, firmware changes? What keeps someone from just covering the light with a sticker or paint?

It might help, but it certain doesn't solve the underlying issues.