|
|
MO lawmaker proposes requiring ID for Google Wallet, Apple Pay sales
|
|
|
|
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status:
Offline
|
|
A St. Louis, Missouri governmental official sees weakness in electronic payment security, and is seeking to mandate identification presentation in conjunction with an Apple Pay transaction, or other similar electronic payments. Democrat Joshua Peters from Missouri's state House of Representatives bill will, if passed into law, not only mandate sales staff to verify the identity of the purchaser, but retain this information as well.
The identification requirement may be helpful to deter fraud with electronic transactions without authentication, like the competing CurrentC mobile wallet. However, Apple Pay -- and Google Wallet to a lesser extent -- requires user authentication: a fingerprint, in the case of Apple Pay transactions.
The bill, introduced Wednesday, would hold retailers responsible for fraudulent purchases should the information not be obtained and retained. Not addressed is how the retailers will couple this information with a secure transaction, which could also cause security problems not only with the transaction itself, but a master list of identification, which would be a tempting theft target.
(
Last edited by NewsPoster; Jan 25, 2015 at 10:04 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2010
Status:
Offline
|
|
Mandate that sales staff verify the identity? A fingerprint isn't adequate? What's this guy drinking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pacific northwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
I read elsewhere that credit card companies don't require and actually state that stores can't check check a person's ID to use a credit card. You just have to sign the back. I think this politician needs to do some research into what he's asking for to see how the credit card contracts are already written as well as how ApplePay and others actually work. Maybe he's only trying to force CurrentC to require and ID.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: loc
Status:
Offline
|
|
Please tell me the word "tubes" isn't in this bill...
|
Just sayin'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
The headline reads "MI lawmaker..." MI is Michigan, I didn't read anything about a Michigan lawmaker in this story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, Rycardo, I blew it.
Fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Some - many - lawmakers are just plain stupid.
This one is mandating the collection of data which can be used for identity theft.
Are some of his relatives in prison? Are they advising him on this law?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
This idiot Peters needs to find a new line of work where he is not able to introduce potential laws that are absurd to anyone with a scrap of intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
If this should pass, the solution is simple. When the clerk asks for ID, refuse. Leave the merchandise at the checkout and leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status:
Offline
|
|
That's not a great solution, and burdens the retailer, who likely is as displeased about the situation as the consumer is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status:
Offline
|
|
"That's not a great solution, and burdens the retailer, who likely is as displeased about the situation as the consumer is."
And the retailer will not be happy about losing a sale because of a stupid nonsensical law. Enough lost sales and that law will be history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by msuper69
"That's not a great solution, and burdens the retailer, who likely is as displeased about the situation as the consumer is."
And the retailer will not be happy about losing a sale because of a stupid nonsensical law. Enough lost sales and that law will be history.
You're assuming that most voters and lawmakers will care about this new retail sale abandonment problem. Retailers and Apple Pay consumers are a very small portion of the populace, and lawmakers are generally luddites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Come on, the only reason he's requiring this information is Missouri is the Show Me state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2009
Status:
Offline
|
|
I am both heartened and saddened to see that no one party has a monopoly on stupidity. (Though one has a dominant market share.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Morons. I am increasingly becoming an anarchist. Allow retailers to RETAIN our identification. Exactly how? Sounds like a potential revival of the tried and true legal tender called CASH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Thank goodness we have lawmakers discerning whether or not payment schemes are secure or not, and coming up with technologically advanced and secure fixes on their own if they're not. I had no idea a degree in computer security was required for them to hold their current political position, and I feel so much safer now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Too F'ing Cold, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Wow... why am I not surprised to see people claiming that the legislature in MO are "idiots", "morons" and some threatening to become anarchists because of this subject.
Seriously, people?
Originally Posted by efithian
If this should pass, the solution is simple. When the clerk asks for ID, refuse. Leave the merchandise at the checkout and leave.
You fanatics are certainly a sensitive bunch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
But shouldn't the government regulate everything and take care of us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
This is a great idea since it'll now require even further time for the purchase...time enough for the clerk to check to see if the person behind is indeed holding a gun to the buyer's back during this heinous crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|