Paying With the Wave of a Cellphone

holy_calamity writes "Tech Review discusses how it will soon be possible to pay in stores by waving your cellphone over a contactless reader, thanks to new handsets due next year, and RFID stickers and cases offered today by firms including Visa. It's convenient for shoppers, but a major driver of the technology is the opportunity for retailers to gain access to their customers' cellphones and social networks for marketing purposes."

Comments

Yeah, right

[balaband]

Like losing your cellphone wasn't bad enough so far?

and...

[polle404]

And the blackhat standing by the exit door with a 50$ RFID-reader gets my account as well.
They're gonna need some very hefty security measures to get me on that bandwagon, thankyouverymuch!

"but a major driver of the technology is the opportunity for retailers to gain access to their customers' cellphones and social networks for marketing purposes."
Is NOT helping in convincing me.

I don't want a facebook/twitter update of what I bought and where, every time I shop.

Re:and...

[CharmElCheikh]

And the blackhat standing by the exit door with a 50$ RFID-reader gets my account as well.

I work at a company who works on the cellphone side of the thing. It's been part of the specs since the first drafts that transfers require a manual validation (press a button) to occur. Did you really think you were the first to think of that.

Re:First call

[mcvos]

I actually do want RFID capability in my phone. But only if that means I can have a built-in RFID Guardian.

But giving retailers access to all my contacts? Why the hell would I want to do that?

Re:It already exists

[lingon]

The "no way you can have it done from your pocket" only applies for zero gain antennas. The black hat standing at the exit point, or better yet, in the van some meters away with a high gain parabolic antenna would tend to disagree.

Re:Mark of the beast!

[ultranova]

Please reply to what the GP actually posted. Their bible quote points out that eventually *everyone* will have to have the "mark" to do transactions. There eventually will be no opting out. You're better off not replying if you aren't going to read what the person whote that you are replying directly to.

Let's assume Bible to be inerrant. Let's also assume that this particular quote was meant as a prediction of future events thousands of years away; there's a pretty strong argument that the whole Book of Revelation was written as a thinly-disguised "fuck you" to the Roman Empire, who had a habit of putting their rulers portraits on their money (so you'd have to take the "image of the beast" into your hand to conduct transactions) and requiring worship of said rulers, and had a ruler (Nero) who had just died but was rumored to be alive and about to return, was commonly considered a beast, and who's name can be read as "666" by a common numerological method of the time, but let's ignore all that.

Even with these assumptions, your argument is illogical. There is no reason to assume that RFID tags really are the fulfilment of a particular prophecy, just because they could be. You certainly can't assume that they are, then use that to "disprove" any counterarguments, for that is begging the question. The GP pointed out that RFID tags seem unlikely to go the way the Mark of the Beast is supposed to; that's evidence that RFID tags are not, in fact, Mark of the Beast, not that they are MotB and a miracle will enforce all the conditionals.

This is why religious arguments usually get modded down: even if you assume that said religion is correct, the arguments themselves tend to be one logical fallacy on top of another, and often completely incoherent.