Slashdot Mirror


Google Wallet: the End of Anonymous Shopping

jfruhlinger writes "Google today announced Google Wallet, an NFC-based payment system that will allow people to pay for purchases just by waving their phone across a reader. It's the beginning of a future where commercial transactions are 'frictionless' and convenient — but it's a future where every transaction can be tracked and data-mined, as Dan Tynan points out. Stores can user information about your Doritos purchases to rearrange their wares; Google could push coupons via its new Google Offers service; your health insurance company might be interested in your sodium intake."

253 comments

  1. Hyperbole by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 5, Funny

    C'mon, Google Wallet is the end of anonymous shopping? No, if you don't want to be tracked by Google Wallet, just don't use Google Wallet. If you want to stay anonymous, use cash.

    And wear a hat.
    And gloves.
    And a fake mustache.

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:Hyperbole by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, credit cards, debit cards and checks claim prior art.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm concerned, this should be the only comment on this article.

      As far as I'm concerned, everybody should care about how far I'm concerned.

    3. Re:Hyperbole by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Exactly, there will still be shopping with bills and coins which are actually anonymous.

      Even decades after the adoption of the credit card and debt card by retailers the vast majority still take cash too.

    4. Re:Hyperbole by Intron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fine until everyone requires some tracked form of payment. Try using cash to buy an airline ticket, for example. See you when you get out.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    5. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. This by itself is no different than a credit card in terms of traceability.

    6. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amen... amen

    7. Re:Hyperbole by PPH · · Score: 1

      And don't use those store discount cards.*

      *Better yet: I came across one in some junk at an estate sale of a deceased person. That was about 10 years ago. The card is still valid.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Hyperbole by somersault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was going to mod you Underrated, but instead I'd just like to say that whoever wrote the article is dumb as shit. And not that high grade shit.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:Hyperbole by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    10. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to stay anonymous, use cash.

      And wear a hat.
      And gloves.
      And a fake mustache.

      As an Anonymous Coward, I support this suggestion.

    11. Re:Hyperbole by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Try using cash to buy an airline ticket, for example. See you when you get out.

      What do you mean "try" using cash? Southwest Airlines lists it as one of their accepted forms of payment:

      Cash: Southwest Airlines accepts cash for payment of purchase at all airport ticket counter locations.

      Don't let pesky little things like facts get in the way of a stupid post, though.

    12. Re:Hyperbole by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Its just SO wrong that we need a guide on how to buy TRAVEL with cash.

      --
      Good-bye
    13. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you want to stay anonymous, use cash.

      That is why cash will sooner or later be outlawed.

    14. Re:Hyperbole by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      You have to show your ID to buy a ticket, even if you pay with cash. Your name is printed on your ticket. We stopped being able to fly anonymously shortly after 9/11/2001

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    15. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get a new supermarket card (with a ficticious name) every few visits, and always pay in cash.

      I don't care if they track my purchases as long as said purchases aren't linked to me as an identified individual. Analysis of shopping patterns might lead to better service, like, maybe, *maybe* they won't run out of tonic water so often in the summer. Maybe.

    16. Re:Hyperbole by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      eHow will have an article on almost anything you Google search on because it's a site for click whoring.

    17. Re:Hyperbole by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Also, credit cards, debit cards and checks claim prior art.

      Except that it required cooperation with your financial institution to get at this data, and if you use separate financial insitutions (not unusual), it's hard to correlate all that data into one complete profile.

      With Google Wallet, you'll just literally Google the information out in one go. And querying one big entity with information on all of us is much easier than having to gather from multiple companies and reconstruct the trail from there.

      Ditto loyalty cards - if someone profiles you, they'll have to go to all the supermarkets you use. If you use several, it's several databases you have to query and correlate.

    18. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just don't fill out the form with the discount card. Or if you *have* to fill out the form to get the card, give a fake name and address. The cashier doesn't care.

    19. Re:Hyperbole by hedwards · · Score: 1

      But, I have a mustache. Does that mean I have to shave it off just to wear a fake one?

    20. Re:Hyperbole by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Except, well... Google doesn't just give up your information as freely as you think. It's no different than a credit card company. If you don't like it, continue to use your Visa instead of Google.

      It's not like I can Google "nschubach bought ? on Tuesday" and get a full report. What are you thinking?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    21. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may be somewhat due to credit and debit companies taking a cut of the payment -- companies keep all of the cash.

    22. Re:Hyperbole by Stunning+Tard · · Score: 5, Funny

      BitCoins! I have no idea what they have to do with the current discussion, just throwing it out there.

    23. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Fuck that, they'll just go to Experian.

      Experian? Who are they? Yeah, if you don't know about Experian, you don't understand privacy today.

      See, Experian is, to the public, a credit rating agency. So they just so happen to collect all your credit card data, loan information, and so forth. Fancy that!

      But it gets better.

      See, they also collect all that loyalty card data that you believe is so difficult to acquire... among *many* other things. They then correlate the data up, package it, and sell it to whomever wants it. Traditionally this has been direct mail marketers, among other things.

      And the breadth of the metrics available? Astounding. People who purchase that data know if your fucking car lease is about to expire or not.

      So trust me when I say, Google Wallet is nothing. The privacy horse ran out of the barn a long long time ago.

    24. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as Dan Tynan points out.

      You, sir, are correct.

    25. Re:Hyperbole by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 0

      No. You have to wear a fake mustache over your real one. Or you can put it over your eyebrows and make a unibrow. Your choice.

      ...Actually I changed my mind, it's not your choice. Wear a fake fu manchu mustache over your eyebrows.

    26. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh - this is the same thing that get's posted whenever Google does anything.

      News flash people : Google is big but not all powerful nor is it's every movement the end of privacy.

    27. Re:Hyperbole by drb226 · · Score: 1

      Also, WalletMakers claim trademark infringement. WalletMakers claims that "wallet" is not a general term for "money-and-identification-holder", and Google's use of the term violates their self-proclaimed, possibly government-supported, monopoly on it.

    28. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, well... Google doesn't just give up your information as freely as you think.

      Better turn up your hearing aid, grandpa. This is the age of the internet! We've conclusively proven that the plural of "anecdote" is "data", old man. This means Google will, in fact, give up your information to anyone who asks nicely and gives them chocolates, and for a couple bucks more will join them on a global hunt to rip your very soul through your nose using that information, just for laughs on a slow Thursday. I know it's true, since I once heard about a security breach in their map software ten years ago, and so did this one guy I learned it from who writes a blog.

    29. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We stopped being able to fly anonymously long before that.

    30. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that, most small restaurants and many small produce stands don't take cards. Good luck buying that Chinese/Indian/Mexican/? food or fresh produce without cash.

    31. Re:Hyperbole by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      but it's a present where every transaction can be tracked and data-mined

      FTFY.

      Also, discount cards were specifically created for this data mining. Rebates also get your info. Credit Card cash back is to induce you to use credit cards instead of cash so they get their fees and can track you more.

    32. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love when the paranoid guy shows up and sheds some light on how the tinfoilers do things.

    33. Re:Hyperbole by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Ship yourself via overnight air.

    34. Re:Hyperbole by peragrin · · Score: 1

      um try again. You needed to have an ID to fly sometime in the mid 90's. ( I can't remember when but I was always asked for my license while traveling in 1995/6)

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    35. Re:Hyperbole by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Try using cash to buy an airline ticket

      No doubt! I was stuck flying back on a redeye from Mexico city. When I pulled out cash to upgrade to first class I had that sudden feeling you get when you pull out $50, in 1's 10's and 5's, in a convenience store on the south side. Lets just say it was the only time I ever felt the temperature drop in Mexico.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    36. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..every time someone mention BitCoins there will be other person pasting his BC address asking for couple of coins. ;)

    37. Re:Hyperbole by SealBeater · · Score: 1

      Do you think the powers that be care about some Mom/Pop Vietnamese grocery store?

      --
      -- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
    38. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      If you want to stay anonymous, use bitcoin.

      FTFY

    39. Re:Hyperbole by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      Oh yes it is! I don't have to show an ID or give my person information out to get a disposable pay as you go phone. This could be great for anonymous shopping, provided you use a pay as you go phone.

    40. Re:Hyperbole by tftp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not like I can Google "nschubach bought ? on Tuesday" and get a full report.

      Why don't you try that query yourself? I did. Congratulations with your purchase of '04 Silver RX8 - G/T Package - 6 Spd. MT in June 2004. It was probably nice weather then in Schaumburg, IL. Is there anything else you'd like to announce to the whole world? Google doesn't need to do a thing here, other than to collect what people willingly reveal about themselves.

      With regard to my own username, it is short and common (as in RFC 783). Besides, I don't reuse usernames. The only way one can associate my posts across multiple sites is by writing style.

    41. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only way one can associate my posts across multiple sites is by writing style.

      I suppose, technically, "an undeserved air of smug superiority combined with rampant paranoia" is a "writing style".

    42. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [q] but it's a future where every transaction can be tracked and data-mined, as Dan Tynan points ou[/q] ;Well let me tell you Dan, that future has been here for a couple decades.

      Did you know that if you used your credit card at merchants specializing in secondhand clothing, retread tires, bail bond services, massages, casino gambling or betting that your credit card company is thinking about raising your interest rates becuase you may be fitting the profile of a having a higher risk of default. Shopping for groceries at Aldi's when your area has a lot of Publix raises a question mark...

      American Express has already acknowledged it used information about where customers shopped to lower credit limits. But after Sen. Waters probe into credit card companies and facing a firestorm of criticism has changed that practice.

      Every transaction processed by the card networks (Visa and MasterCard) is assigned a merchant category code (MCC), a four-digit number that denotes the type of business providing a service or selling merchandise. The MCC for pawnshops, for example, is 5933. For dating and escort services, it's 7273, and for massage parlors, it's 7297.

      Read more: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/how-shopping-can-affect-credit-1282.php#ixzz1NUxm9E8i
      Compare credit cards here - www.CreditCards.com

      Federal financial privacy laws (Regulation P) prohibit credit card issuers from sharing your personal and payment information with third parties not affiliated with the issuer (except under court order or when fraud is involved). Banks must send annual copies of their privacy policies to cardholders, but the law does not govern what the issuer does with payment information internally.

      Kroger data mines useing their Kroger card -- they claim that if you register your info and loose your keys they can be returned to you if you keep the keychain swip card attached. Really by you putting in your real zip code they get to create demograpic data on who is shopping at what store and what people of each zip code are buying. Did you know that zip codes are all associated with socio economic data, average wealth of an area, quailty of schools , average family size .... you ge the picture, Kroger can change its marketing practices per area with the help you give by filling out the Kroger card slip. It also tracks what you buy... there is an OLD OLD piece of info that every data miner knows ... if you go to the store to buy diapers and milk you will also most likely buy beer. Thats why they are evenly spaced apart in a store... normally dairy is along an outer aisle, with diapers in the middle of the store and beer in an opposing side. Its not the rule but its most common in practice. Your reciepts are tracked and what you buy in groups all has been coorrelated and supermarkets are set up for you to walk around them and see almost every sale if you are buying those resupply groceries you often need in the middle of the week. it works ...

      Data Mining began long long ago, if you think it will just begin tomorrow you live in a galaxy far far away.

    43. Re:Hyperbole by Americium · · Score: 1

      Bitcoins are more worthless than paper.

    44. Re:Hyperbole by geekoid · · Score: 2

      No it didn't.
      The stores track all the information right now. Your names, what you buy. Every piece of data they can. So if you are not using cash, they already have that information.

      They only need to go to financial institutions if they want your bank information.

      This is also in conjunction with a financial institution, just like you CC/DC.

      How hard to you really think it is to correlate the data currently?

      If you are marketing to a large demographic, you need to contact maybe a dozen chain.
      If you are looking for a specific person? same thing.
      There will be some outliers, but they wont' really be relevant.

      If it's to issue out a court order, then the process is already in place to make it trivial.
      You've taken a days work and turned it into 4 hours work.

      What you, and I, and everyone need t do is constantly put pressure on our Representatives to get basic protection.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    45. Re:Hyperbole by tftp · · Score: 1

      "an undeserved air of smug superiority combined with rampant paranoia" is a "writing style".

      That is true. But I do my best to vary the style :-) Besides, wearing the mask of "rampant paranoia" mixes me with the rest of the Internet crowd :-)

    46. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let pesky little things like facts get in the way of a stupid post, though.

      Wow you must be great at parties. Anyway this a thread that devolved from recorded vs anonymous transactions conflating recorded with electronic and anonymous with cash. Ultimately, the poster then replaced anonymous with cash in his statement. The better post would have been, 'try buying a plane ticket anonymously'. AS to your comment, if your brain has never made two symbols metaphors or conflated two ideas all I can say is this.

    47. Re:Hyperbole by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Wow. Where do I get this pay-as-you-go phone that I can use to buy groceries, electronics and maybe even a new car? I assume you mean one that has no link to my banking info. So it's all free!

    48. Re:Hyperbole by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Right. Google doesn't give away this information - it has value. They sell it.

      For example, how much do you think their recent survey of all the wireless routers in the world is worth to wireless router manufacturers? To know what routers are being used in more affluent zip codes as opposed to poorer districts? Also, based on signal strength the Google data probably has an 80-90% correlation of router MAC address to street address, and you can get all sorts of demographic data from a street address. I have no idea what Google is selling this data for, but you better believe that it is worth a lot.

      If this became a common payment method - which I doubt - it would give Google a huge marketing data revenue stream, probably worth tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

      I don't see it happening anytime soon, because it depends on the NFC communication chip being in the phone. Not there is just about any phone today and unlikely to just pop in so Google can make even more money.

    49. Re:Hyperbole by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      The stores already sell the data to aggregators. The raw scan data plus loyalty card information. Every single item that is scanned at a checkout station.

      The stores make some money from this, but the aggregators make a lot more for analysis and packaging it all up. No manufacturer in their right mind isn't buying this information because they have to know who is buying what. It guides product development decisions and what to do with current products.

      Google would be in the unique position of being both the collector (ding!) and aggregator (ding! ding! ding!). They would be making money from all phases of it.

    50. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since Google offers two different payment methods, only one of which is a credit card, he's presumably referring to the pre-paid option.

      That said, the launch is only for the Nexus S 4G, which doesn't look like it has a pre-paid, anonymous option. And all the major credit card networks have pre-paid gift cards that can be bought quite easily to ensure anonymity when purchasing. So I'm not sure his point stands that this changes anything.

    51. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So papers are worth over $9 each? I guess if they're really big papers, or if they're signed by celebrities or something.

    52. Re:Hyperbole by similar_name · · Score: 1

      Analysis of shopping patterns might lead to better service, like, maybe, *maybe* they won't run out of tonic water so often in the summer. Maybe.

      I don't even think *maybe* since they can already tell how much tonic water they go through without having to know the names of the people who bought it. They don't need your name to tell that you bought hot dogs, mustard and buns for this weekend since they can track each check out. This allows them all the purchasing relationships they need. Even without buying things at the same time there will still be a relationship of x amount of toothpaste = y amount of toothbrushes over a given time. Less obvious relationships can also be established. They can look at last year's purchases and see relationships between condoms, ky and candles without having to know that Bob is getting lucky tonight. They don't need your name for anything except to know your name :)

      BTW I give them phone numbers of random people in my phone until one of them works. It seems women sign up more for loyalty cards. I guess there's a shopping/loyalty/women tangent there I'll have to take up another day. ;)

    53. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's see- smug douchebag with an over-developed sense of his own superiority... are you... every internet user ever?

    54. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sadly have this switched around. Credit companies can and do get away with this because they have no accountability. Tech behemoths... Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc... cannot, because all it takes is one proven allegation of one transaction and either they're standing in front of the supreme court (Microsoft) or they face a major media backlash (Apple) or their users abandon them en mass (Google).

    55. Re:Hyperbole by ickleberry · · Score: 1

      Good to know there are some slashdotters out there who drive manual transmission cars

    56. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no.. all that's required is enough money.. sorry I'd rather the information not be collected. then it cannot be abused. point of sale only.. after that, discard.

    57. Re:Hyperbole by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was a fun car to have for the time I did... and I don't live in Schaumburg anymore. So that's terribly relevant information for someone trying to sell me something when I live two states away now. ;)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    58. Re:Hyperbole by icebraining · · Score: 2

      We're called "Europeans".

    59. Re:Hyperbole by tftp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't live in Schaumburg anymore. So that's terribly relevant information for someone trying to sell me something when I live two states away now. ;)

      That would be only marginally true. You are interested in these cars, and you even had one - so this bit of information is quite valuable, especially if it can be datamined without the expense of owning dealerships and keeping records.

      And that would be completely untrue with regard to protecting your anonymity - if, for example, the government is after you. The IP address is history; probably nobody can figure out who it was given to 7 years ago. However Schaumburg is a small town (about 75,000?) - how many cars of this make and model were sold to residents there? Probably not more than a few; and these records stay forever.

      I'm probably not sufficiently paranoid to worry too much about such things (and obviously neither are you) - but from purely technical point of view a lot of information was leaked, and that information can be exploited by anyone who cares. This is something to be concerned about if you discuss your ownership of expensive cars, firearms, or other stuff that is in high demand. You don't want to reveal ownership and location at the same time.

    60. Re:Hyperbole by milkmage · · Score: 1

      except google could also get the info.

      can't avoid the banks getting it (aside from not using credit cards) but I don't need to let google in on it as well.

      imagine what they could grock if chrome is your browser of choice.. as soon as you use your phone @ home on wifi - there's a possibilty they could tie your surfing habits to your shopping habits.

      privacy concerns aside - what's the advantage of waving your phone over the sensor vs. swiping your card through the POS machine?

    61. Re:Hyperbole by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      And hey, it gets better: ever heard of Hitwise? Also by Experian. Internet tracking. Their own tagline is "the leading online competitive intelligence service". The amount of data that flows through Experian is huge, and I can only imagine how it can be correlated together.

      I was this close to working for those guys, and then I wised up and pulled out of the interview process.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    62. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you are not one of the many people who have had no need whatsoever to fly/ die a firey death in an airplane since prior to 9/11.

      Hope you enjoy your security theater hassles. Ingress/egress on an airplane should be as common as riding on a bus.
      Here, have 4 liquid ounces of "ha ha you suckers".

    63. Re:Hyperbole by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Oh yes it is!

      I don't have to show an ID or give my person information out to get a disposable pay as you go phone.

      This could be great for anonymous shopping, provided you use a pay as you go phone.

      I'm betting your Google Wallet will have to be associated with a google account, you know in case of fraud (or some other excuse.) The website describes associating it with a credit card or charging it with a prepay card so there'll be some communication to the internet going on behind the scene leaking all sorts of juicy information back to Google.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    64. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and I don't live in Schaumburg anymore.

      That's what someone trying to get 'them' off their trail would say.

    65. Re:Hyperbole by EdZ · · Score: 1

      To to mention the FeliCa system, a NFC payment system used in Japanese phones for the past 6-7 years.

    66. Re:Hyperbole by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      I'll just stick with the old tried and true method.

      Cash....until they stop printing and accepting that, I'll be happily anonymous in my purchases.

      If on the rare occasion of using a customer card to get a discount...well, that one says I'm a 98 year old hispanic lady named Chang, that is from Sweden.

      I'm sure the shopping habits associated with that account are kinda looking skewed....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    67. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a (former) direct mail marketing customer of Experian, I can tell you that Experian kind of blows actually.

      Their lists are absurdly expensive and have rather poor data quality considering how much source data you'd think they'd be able to have from being a credit agency.

      But you're right about the other part... I just switched to another provider that gives me better data for cheaper. I can find out all sorts of things about you, typically for around a dime per record!

    68. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. Besides, we have too many illegal immgrants in this country for any type of non-cash type of currency to ever fully take hold.

    69. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like I can Google "nschubach bought ? on Tuesday" and get a full report.

      Why don't you try that query yourself? I did. Congratulations with your purchase of '04 Silver RX8 - G/T Package - 6 Spd. MT in June 2004. It was probably nice weather then in Schaumburg, IL. Is there anything else you'd like to announce to the whole world? Google doesn't need to do a thing here, other than to collect what people willingly reveal about themselves.

      With regard to my own username, it is short and common (as in RFC 783). Besides, I don't reuse usernames. The only way one can associate my posts across multiple sites is by writing style.

      I'm sure paranoid and delusional style won't identify you on the internet. You're safe.

    70. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NICE! :)

    71. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I did work for Experian for over a decade in the division responsible for all those credit card offers you get in the mail. The amount of data Experian has on over 300 million people contained in their File One database is staggering. They can and do aggregate mountains of personal financial information from every conceivable source that is used to calculate thousands of different behavioral "attributes" and credit scores at the behest of banks, credit unions, insurance companies, collection agencies, government agencies, and so forth. It's their primary revenue generator that brings in billions every year. Experian was scarily nonchalant about the security of all this data too, with much of it floating around in easily steal able, unencrypted csv and flat files that are regularly sent overseas where much of the database manipulation work has been offshored.

      This article and is about 15 years behind the times and Google Wallet is amateur-ville in comparison with what's already out there.

    72. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My credit card company doesn't know the route I took around the store using my phone's built-in gps. Or what social media apps I use. Or that I necessarily travel frequently. Visa is not likely to examine my search queries and compare them to my shopping behavior when I'm out of the house. Or look at what other known users I tend to hang out with based on phone data when making a purchase. Google gets to use all of this data and more when allowing marketers to target me with their ads. If I buy an item that was mentioned to me yesterday by a friend via email to my gmail account Google can flag my friend as one of my influencers. Did I just buy a keg and a friend just bought a bunch of chips and now we're hanging out together during the NBA finals? Must be a party. Let's show them ads for other beers or that new action film. I'm not saying it's necessarily evil but let's not downplay the differences between this new system and traditional credit cards.

    73. Re:Hyperbole by Intron · · Score: 1

      Don't let pesky little things like facts get in the way of a stupid post, though.

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2222236/posts

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    74. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Russia there are kiosks on the street at which you can buy airplane tickets. You type in the name you want on the ticket and you put cash in the slot. You must still have a passport with the same name as the one you put on the ticket. These are the same kiosks where you put money on your mobile phone, pay your utility bills, and make other payments.

      You still, unfortunately, need to produce a passport to buy a SIM card for your phone in Russia, but if you want to get an anonymous phone, just go south to Ukraine. You can buy SIM cards there completely anonymously everywhere, no questions asked. I would not be surprised if many of the SIM cards in IEDs in Iraq were bought in Ukraine.

    75. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but try to buy cash without presenting a form of identification (drivers license, passport, etc). It can't be done. So no need to get a credit card number, they have your identity anyway. Don't let pesky little things like facts to get in the way of an even more stupid reply, though...

    76. Re:Hyperbole by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Exactly.
      Maybe you want to check out this:
      Naomi Klein on China's all seeing eye.
      That was two years ago.

    77. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid me, all the time I've been using plain old-fashioned cash and apparently I don't even understand privacy since I don't follow the credit card scene.

    78. Re:Hyperbole by Catmeat · · Score: 1
      I've paid for tickets with cash. When I found out the travel agend added on a 2% charge* (£8 extra on the tickets) for using plastic, I figured it was worth while to pop out of the Travel Agent shop for 10 minutes, go to a branch of my bank and get an envelope full of £20 notes.

      * Dunno about other places, but passing the card processing fee onto the customer is reasonably common in the UK.

    79. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you go to the store, you will most likely buy beer.

      FTFY

    80. Re:Hyperbole by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      Hmm, having my money protected against fraud. You know, that sound like a pretty damned good excuse. Yup, I like that, sign me up.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    81. Re:Hyperbole by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is Google wouldn't be violating your privacy any more than you are already allowing it to be violated. Your problem seems to be that Google is doing the same thing Sam Walton did. By cutting out the middle man, only one company is making money on your information rather than two or three. Actually seems like a pretty good idea on Google's part.


      We are basically giving our information away for free anyway, why shouldn't Google get a chance to profit off of it?

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    82. Re:Hyperbole by binkzz · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's Facebook again

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    83. Re:Hyperbole by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      I meant anti-fraud more like the way banks can stop a money transfer going through by/to Kadafi for example or can stop transactions suspected of money laundering activities.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    84. Re:Hyperbole by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In 2005-2006 I bought air tickets with cash twice a year, for two years straight. I don't recall any problems. Am I missing something?

      (FWIW, that was in New Zealand.)

    85. Re:Hyperbole by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Fine until everyone requires some tracked form of payment. Try using cash to buy an airline ticket, for example. See you when you get out.

      The death of truly anonymous shopping will happen when the US Government stops spending millions of dollars to create...billions of dollars...printing cash. Sure I find it odd that we still do print cash, since "demand" for cash is probably WAY lower than it was 10 years ago (try and find a friend who even has $20 on them, seems everyone has cards so no one carries cash anymore).

      There's a reason cash is still king. Until then, people should know that everything they do with a credit, debit, or loyalty card can be tracked and mined, and if you don't want to be tracked, then don't use them. I guess I don't worry about the "mining" thing much when I'm swiping my Subway card. "the man" wants to know how often I eat Subway? Go for it. There are some stresses in life that are worth getting your blood pressure up. IMHO, Subway tracking ain't one of them.

      And I can buy an airline ticket for a friend as a gift all day long, hence breaking the payment tracking chain. Doesn't really matter much when they still have to show proof of ID and be processed through, undoubtedly info will be passed through the no-fly database, etc. etc. There's more than one way to track people who fly, but the answer is still obvious to avoid it; don't fly.

    86. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, don't believe any of that hype about farming land ownership being the end of nomadic lifestyles; those naysayers are just crazy.

    87. Re:Hyperbole by pacinpm · · Score: 1

      I do not trust NFC for different reasons. I worry about similar attacks like those against keyless cars. Basically high gain antennas extending range of operation from near-field to hundre-meters-field.

      I prefer to accept payments with PIN.

    88. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With regard to my own username, it is short and common (as in RFC 783). Besides, I don't reuse usernames. The only way one can associate my posts across multiple sites is by writing style.

      Yeah, but then we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between you and the rest of the smug fuckfaces on the internet.

    89. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until Oct 2011, they could ask, but you could refuse to provide ID.

    90. Re:Hyperbole by theBuddman · · Score: 1
    91. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've paid for tickets with cash. When I found out the travel agend added on a 2% charge* (£8 extra on the tickets) for using plastic, I figured it was worth while to pop out of the Travel Agent shop for 10 minutes, go to a branch of my bank and get an envelope full of £20 notes.

      * Dunno about other places, but passing the card processing fee onto the customer is reasonably common in the UK.

      Ususally only for credit cards. I pay for flights with my debit card and get no additional charge.

    92. Re:Hyperbole by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      really? you can exchange bit coins for money?

      no? I didn't think so...

      The fact that someone is willing to exchange their bit coins for real money doesn't mean you will be able to turn around and exchange those bit coins for the same (or nearly the same) quantity of real money. There is no meaningful currency exchange for bit coins.

    93. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who in the heck modded this as Interesting? tftp wasnt finding information based on Google Wallet, he was just posting information that nschubach made public to an Internet forum. You could easy find posts made by me describing what I thought about some Magic cards years ago when I used to play, or probably some Slashdot posts as well. I would hope that you could anyway, or else Google is really dropping the ball.

      Just because Google is doing its job by cataloging information people knowingly posted on the Web doesn't mean it is going to post information about our private credit card purchases. Just like nschubach said, its no different than trusting VISA not to make that information public.

    94. Re:Hyperbole by Americium · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point. At least you can use paper dollars to burn for warmth or to wipe your ass, so they have some value. There is absolutely nothing you can do with bitcoins, until they let you exchange them for cpu cycles or something. Either way, gold seems to have a lot more intrinsic value, and it can't be hacked.

  2. How the hell is this different from credit cards? by Kuukai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aside from being run by Google?

    --
    Sendou Wave Kick!!
  3. Different then a credit card... how? by Kenja · · Score: 1

    Other then contact-less reading (which can and is done with smart cards already), how does this allow them to track you any differently then a credit card?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Different then a credit card... how? by pavon · · Score: 1

      Agreed, shopping stopped being anonymous when people started using credit cards. My main concern with this system is security. Android phones have been rushed to market, and many are infrequently updated. Smartphones in general, and Android in particular are ripe for malware exploits. I don't even trust it with a credit card for Marketplace purchases, let alone for anything else money related.

    2. Re:Different then a credit card... how? by canajin56 · · Score: 2

      Well, a credit card terminal just gets a total from the register. TFA is assuming that Google will demand and require that all cash registers tell the Google Wallet terminal every single item being purchased! And in case they're wrong, watch how easily it is to back peddle! "You're right, they don't examine what's being bought....yet." It's a classic move, but stick with what works I say.

      FTA is absolutely mentally retarded. Lets take a quote. "The store, for example, could aggregate that information to determine that a lot of people are buying Modelo and Doritos at the same time, and may display them closer together inside the store. Or it may determine the demand for Modelo and Doritos spikes after 11 pm and institute variable pricing, charging more for it in the wee hours than it does in the afternoon." Does this retard think that if you pay cash, the cashier is obligated to sell "under the table" and not use the cash register? Cash registers already record what's being bought. And big shock here, but CASH registers are used even for CASH purchases. What total and complete idiot wrote this pile of garbage?

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  4. Huh? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    What anonymous shopping? You can be traced with enough effort using cash, let alone the ease of tracking the vast majority of people using credit cards, debit cards or checks for purchases. What a fucking stupid headline and summary.

  5. Corrections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 glaring errors in the summary: "NFC-base" should be "NFC-based" and "Stores can user information" should be "Stores can use information"

    1. Re:Corrections by peragrin · · Score: 1

      STores are already storing user information.

      My industry keeps every transaction logged you have made with us for 10 years and we have been doing it for the last 20-30 years.

      While it helps with purchasing (stock refilling), and inventory management, the real purpose is so that when the customer walks up to us and says. Remember that "thing" I bought for this" job" "3 years" ago, I need another one. We can look it up.

      I did it yesterday for a guy. He wanted the exact same thing he just used. When did he buy the last one? 13 months ago.

      The only difference between us and google is that your information stays on our servers period. We use it. Not third party ad companies. I will never put my credit card data on an NFC device ever. I might put a couple of promo cards on there just so I don't have to carry them. but i only have three of those anyways.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Corrections by camperdave · · Score: 1

      2 glaring errors in the summary: "NFC-base" should be "NFC-based" and "Stores can user information" should be "Stores can use information"

      Actually, I was rather hoping that the Stores would can the user information.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  6. Re:How the hell is this different from credit card by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

    Has slashdot/online/other media ever let facts get in the way of a nice headline?

    That credit cards collect the same information is completely irrelevant to the article - because that fact is simply discarded.

  7. Fucking retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, even for Slashdot, this article is fucking retarded. How is this different from credit cards, debit cards, paypal, amazon order history, any form of payment other than cash? Is this random new form of payment somehow suddenly mandatory?

  8. mark of the beast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    closer and closer...

    1. Re:mark of the beast by Anarchduke · · Score: 0

      Didn't you hear? The rapture already passed us all by. I guess that means that I will have to share hell with all the freaking right wing christians. How fucked up is that?

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
  9. BitCoin by Scottingham · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's always BitCoin.....

    1. Re:BitCoin by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yeah if don't want to be able to purchase things from 99.9% of stores out there.

    2. Re:BitCoin by cdibbs · · Score: 1

      Same could have been said of credit cards in their early days.

    3. Re:BitCoin by Saerko · · Score: 1

      There's always Amazon. This guy is an intermediary, sure, but a good portion of Amazon's product is now handled through 3rd parties too, so it's really not a big deal.

      The real thing that will make BitCoin take off is increasing market capitalization of the currency, which is already happening. I mean, over $50 million dollars of Bitcoins in circulation, with $135,000.00 worth of BitCoins exchanged per hour? Shit man, that's an economy already.

      I'm not a futurist, and there are certainly threats to BitCoin from other established internet exchangers, but I think it's got potential, especially for anyone who'd like to see the internet really achieve its true potential as a free medium.

    4. Re:BitCoin by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      ...or a digital cash system that is backed by something. You know, if we are going to use computers to issue payments at stores, we might as well use a digital cash protocol, and if we are going to continue relying on banks and large corporations to underwrite these transactions, then we should use a digital cash system that is backed by $country's currency. You go to the bank, pay them dollars for digital cash tokens, and then use your phone to make the payments. Bitcoin's effort to revolutionize the global economic system is not really relevant here, we just need a method of payment using computers that does not allow people to raid our bank accounts or steal our identities.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:BitCoin by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I wrote Smart Card software in 95 that did this same thing in Zambia.

      IN fact, it was initially written so the merchant could put money on and off the card. So they could pay their employees. Of course that means the bank is out of the loop, so we removed that feature pretty quickly.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:BitCoin by tftp · · Score: 2

      I'm not a futurist, and there are certainly threats to BitCoin from other established internet exchangers, but I think it's got potential

      It got no potential, and for one very simple reason: common people today can't earn this "currency." It is very difficult to generate bitcoins - so difficult that it is impractical, unless you invest into a GPU farm. Of course you can buy bitcoins, but why would anyone do that?

      The inability to earn bitcoins creates an ever-growing chasm between early adopters (and inventors, who minted mountains of bitcoins in the early days of the project) and today's people who need to task their computer to work for days, weeks or months (wasting energy that costs real money) to generate one bitcoin.

      The numbers of early adopters are fixed - that phase has already happened, and by definition there were only few players. The numbers of the late refuseniks are growing, and ultimately the whole population of the planet (modulo the first group) will be in their ranks.

      The refuseniks are justifying their refusal to use bitcoins by a very simple fact that the coin has variable exchange value to different groups of people. Early adopters got it for free. Late adopters need 100 kWh to generate one.

      This is not the case with gold or most of other currencies. The miner had to work $n hours to mine $m grams of gold. The baker had to work $k hours to buy $m grams of gold from the miner. The ratio $k/$n is the difference in risk and hardships and all that that forms the difference between occupations. The baker can become a miner if he thinks the grass is greener there, and the other way around (if the miner breaks a leg and can't do the mining job anymore.) But the late user of bitcoins can't go back in time and become a bitcoin miner.

      This factor alone will be sufficient to create a backlash against bitcoins, and that backlash will be serious enough to kill the idea. At this point, though, bitcoins are simply ignored as a raw deal, a pyramid scheme that they are.

    7. Re:BitCoin by grumbel · · Score: 0

      While BitCoin is anonymous, from what I understand all transactions in BitCoin are public. Wouldn't that make it rather easy to trace it back and de'anomynize the transactions as soon as I make a transaction with the real world? Say I go shopping at Amazon, I naturally have to tell Amazon, my name, where I live, etc. as I wanna get a package from them, I also have to tell them my BitCoin address as thats how I would pay. My address now however is no longer anonymous, it is attached to a name that Amazon knows. BitCoin of course allows the creation of an arbitrary number of addresses, but I don't see them helping much, as you wouldn't have any money attached to them, if you transfer money to them, you again can be trivially traced, as one would just need to look who was the previous owner of the money. Do that with a few transactions and you might soon find the real address.

      Don't know all to much about BitCoin, so is that really the case, I did I miss something fundamental?

    8. Re:BitCoin by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      No, not really. The major difference is that credit cards had the backing of financial institutions.

    9. Re:BitCoin by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      This guy is an intermediary, sure, but a good portion of Amazon's product is now handled through 3rd parties too, so it's really not a big deal.

      Sorry, but no. Those other "3rd parties" you mention almost always have Amazon stock, fulfill and ship the order so it is nothing like buying through some random dude.

      I'm not a futurist, and there are certainly threats to BitCoin from other established internet exchangers, but I think it's got potential, especially for anyone who'd like to see the internet really achieve its true potential as a free medium.

      Sure if you want to deal with a current that will have limited amounts of people accepting it and has a miniscule supply.

    10. Re:BitCoin by beppu · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What's so great about being backed by ChairSatan Ben Bernanke? If he's the best backup you've got, give me BitCoin all day, any day.

    11. Re:BitCoin by molecular · · Score: 1

      give it some time

    12. Re:BitCoin by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      If you want to earn some bitcoins, I have some work for you...how are you at making web graphics?

      You sort of miss the whole point of the early miners. The idea is to get a fair number of bitcoins into circulation, the fact that it's becoming harder to mine is a good thing (for bitcoin business owners). It means that the number of coins is stabilizing. Now they can be used for trading. If everybody is able to make their own coins then it just becomes monopoly money. It's the insured scarcity of the coins that gives them value.

    13. Re:BitCoin by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      With Bitcoin all(heh) it takes is a VPN, Tor, and public wifi to ensure anonymity. Not easy, but certainly better than paypal...

    14. Re:BitCoin by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      so you are unaware of how easy it was to break Tor's anonymity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)#Weaknesses

    15. Re:BitCoin by grumbel · · Score: 1

      That doesn't really address the problem I mentioned, all it does is hide your IP and I am not even sure if that matters in BitCoin as as far as I understand you don't really transfer BitCoins by sending them over directly, but by signing them and putting them in the public database. Thus you wouldn't even need a direct IP connection.

    16. Re:BitCoin by tftp · · Score: 1

      If you want to earn some bitcoins, I have some work for you...

      Lots of people have lots of work for other people as long as they don't have to pay real money.

      What is real money? Well, the USD is not exactly it, as we know, but at least it is a state-approved (and state-enforced) currency. If you pay me in bitcoins I can't buy groceries with it, or gas. So the bitcoins are useless to me in the most essential areas of economy. If you want to hire me then you'd better give me something in return that I can exchange for something - which means other people must want bitcoins. This last part is not happening, and without it bitcoins will be a fringe currency for a niche economy, not better (but worse) than any government-supported currency or a product (in case of barter.)

      You sort of miss the whole point of the early miners. The idea is to get a fair number of bitcoins into circulation, the fact that it's becoming harder to mine is a good thing (for bitcoin business owners). It means that the number of coins is stabilizing.

      I think I get the idea correctly. Early miners mined the coins to get rich. That's basically all. You can build whatever social theory you want on top of that, but the foundation is very simple.

      A honest currency would be minted by an independent 3rd party that has no sticky hands. That's what countries do; treasury doesn't print a million dollars and give $800K to its employees. All the printed money go into circulation, and printers just get their salaries.

      It is not a requirement that "everybody is able to mint their own coins", though it wouldn't be unreasonable. For example, a gold miner is free to wash his own gold, and everyone is free to become such a miner. But in case of bitcoins minting is allowed for different purposes:

      1. to put the currency into circulation. After the founders set aside about 2/3 of the issue to themselves, the rest was given to the masses, to mint for themselves. There was no other way to distribute bitcoins, short of giving them away (I believe this is also happening but on tiny scale.)
      2. to promote the currency. It creates an illusion that anyone can make money.

      The illusion doesn't last; some people understand that they are about to he had when they read the instructions ("a modern CPU needs a year to generate one bitcoin, and because of that only GPU-assisted generation makes sense" - that's what the bitcoin client tells you.) Other people don't read instructions, run the client for a week or two, notice that they are burning through the lifetime of the computer, spending $$$ on energy, and no bitcoins are coming out.

      There are, of course, GPU farm owners. With the best hardware money can buy, and with proper setup, they appear to make some income. Good for them. But in essence they are the trailing edge, the last ripple of the initial wave of founders. They are undermining their own business, and the founders are just laughing how those farm owners are fighting between each other for the last scraps of the money pile. Founders already got most of the bitcoins. It's like a medieval aristocrat throwing a handful of copper coins at the crowd of beggars.

      To summarize, the idea of bitcoins may or may not be sound, but the implementation is certainly unacceptable. I don't want to have anything to do with a currency where its issuer pocketed most of the issue on day one.

  10. FTFY... by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1

    ... your health insurance company might be interested in your sodium intake.

    s/be interested in/change your premium based on/

    FTFY.

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
  11. Gotta love it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Stores can user information about your Doritos purchases to..."

    I'm starting to think you all do this on purposes.

    1. Re:Gotta love it by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      "Stores can user information about your Doritos purchases to..."

      I'm starting to think you all do this on purposes.

      They cleaned it up some. The original submission was texted: "OMG /. peeps!! stores kin useur info bout ur doritos buyin..."

  12. Re:How the hell is this different from credit card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Credit cards only store that you have a transaction at a certain shop. What you bought exactly isn't known to the credit card company. It depends on what information is shared with Google Wallet.

  13. Tin foil hat or just dumb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't decide.

  14. Nothing else does that! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    but it's a future where every transaction can be tracked and data-mined

    Thank God they can't do that with credit cards!

    1. Re:Nothing else does that! by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Actually they can't, because the cash register only sends the total to the credit card terminal, not a line-by-line rundown. That's why there's a register receipt with every item, and a credit card receipt with the total only. TFA is assuming Google will change this. They're also assuming that cash registers don't already log purchaces, which is completely false. Actually, it's laughable. TFA even says this will cost jobs because, with an android phone checkout, they won't need cashiers! Cus lacking android phone swipe payments is why there are no automated checkouts, right? What. The. Fuck.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    2. Re:Nothing else does that! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you happen to use a supermarket discount card they DO have what you bought and they do data mine that information

  15. Re:How the hell is this different from credit card by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, you see, when it comes to patents, people are offended that adding but it's online or but with a computer or but in the cloud makes something qualify as a new idea.

    When it comes to things that could involve gathering data, adding but now Google is doing it makes it new and outrageous.

  16. My girlfriend thinks I'm paranoid by BLToday · · Score: 1

    My girlfriend thinks I'm paranoid because I use cash just about everywhere except at Costco and online. The less "they" know about me the less likely they are to put in "nerd re-education camp." Or because "they" have so little information on me, I'm sticking out. hmmm... tough position.

    1. Re:My girlfriend thinks I'm paranoid by jschmitz · · Score: 1

      you ARE paranoid - who is they??? geezuz

    2. Re:My girlfriend thinks I'm paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call shenanigans. I don't think you actually have a girlfriend.

    3. Re:My girlfriend thinks I'm paranoid by earls · · Score: 1

      BLToday (1777712)

      Gotcha.

    4. Re:My girlfriend thinks I'm paranoid by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      You are. Either that or your a "them", which might be worse ;)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:My girlfriend thinks I'm paranoid by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      She's one of their agents actually.

    6. Re:My girlfriend thinks I'm paranoid by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      What you need to do is keep up a steady flow of completely boring transactions for 'them' to track, and keep all the interesting stuff anonymous.

      What sort of interesting things are you doing with your money, anyway? ;)

      --
      WALSTIB!
    7. Re:My girlfriend thinks I'm paranoid by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Okay, Robert Lawrence. Keep thinking you're safe.

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
    8. Re:My girlfriend thinks I'm paranoid by BLToday · · Score: 1

      Nice try. Not a real name, randomly generated generic name :)

  17. Rogue group announces alternative to Google wallet by billlava · · Score: 2

    Certain renegade elements of the consumer sector are considering switching to alternate methods of payment in retaliation against Google's proprietary monetary transaction system. "Basically the plan is to exchange small rectangular pieces of green paper in exchange for all debts, public and private," said one proponent of this new monetary system. When asked how his purchasing history would be tracked, indexed, and made available to advertisers in order to better serve him, he responded, "That's kind of the point."

    More on this story, and new developments that indicate water may be wetter than once thought, at 11.

  18. Big scary summary! by emuls · · Score: 0

    "Google today announced Google Wallet [...] Google could push coupons via its new Google Offers service; your health insurance company might be interested in your sodium intake."

    And I won't have to use it or be affected by it at all.

  19. Somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think people who don't want their transactions recorded will be using Google wallet to pay for their recreational substances, or their hookers...

  20. A Good Thing by earls · · Score: 1

    While this is nothing new explained 16 times above, this this a good thing. In any scenario where large amounts of data are being collected, and that data is consider the infallible truth, the truth can be poisoned before being passed on to be consumed. As long as you know what information they're collecting, you can give them any information you want within those parameters.

  21. Doomed to Fail by billlava · · Score: 1

    I just realized this will never take off. Look at their logo.
    Look familiar?

  22. The next generation of spam-attack by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

    I need to set up a whole lot of billing booths at random places along streets that read "walk past me to make a $1 donation to my personal wellbeing!"

  23. Person who knows the most by jwaynemedia · · Score: 1

    If you want to really learn whats going on about google wallet go to www.terrencebrejla.net

    1. Re:Person who knows the most by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer www.yourmomshouse.org you fucking spammer

  24. Can you say Hack Me Please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a new age of digital pick-pockets that steal your wallet without even touching you. And also, Google knows which ads you click on, but now they'll know which ads lead you to spend more money. And they'll know what you're buying in real life, too, not just on the webs. I'm gonna start using the barter system again. -www.awkwardengineer.com

  25. It's final: "New" isn't necessarily "better" by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I don't know about anybody else, but I've been considering going back to paying cash for most everything for a while now. I read much more like this and I'll be doing it.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:It's final: "New" isn't necessarily "better" by CaseCrash · · Score: 2

      Don't wait, switch to cash. They won't be able to track you as easily (not that you probably matter or that they care) and also it'll mean you can't get into debt. Credit is the devil. Never had a credit card, never will. Can't afford it, don't buy it. It's worked great for me for years.

      --
      No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
    2. Re:It's final: "New" isn't necessarily "better" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Why? why is this different the use CC? Paypass? It's not.

      Go back to cash if you want, but your paranoia is unfounded and based on incorrect information.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:It's final: "New" isn't necessarily "better" by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      How do you rent a car or book a hotel room without a credit card? Genuinely curious. I had no CC for a few years after I graduated until I wanted to start traveling and found it almost impossible to do it without a credit card.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    4. Re:It's final: "New" isn't necessarily "better" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep a debit card for times when you have to use a card?

    5. Re:It's final: "New" isn't necessarily "better" by kheldan · · Score: 1

      "Can't afford it then don't buy it" only works up to a point. If I stuck 100% to that, then I would be walking or taking busses everywhere, I'd still be living in a tiny ~300 square foot apartment, and generally not having a life. This isn't the 1940's anymore. If you don't have credit, you're considered a second-class citizen. Of course what I was referring to was not using my debit card, instead carrying cash; I never said I was going to cut up the one credit card I have.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    6. Re:It's final: "New" isn't necessarily "better" by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Not sure who you're speaking to here, but I'm the OP, and I wasn't talking about cutting up my one credit card, I was talking about not using my debit card and carrying cash instead. In this day and age, if you have no credit, you're considered a second-class citizen.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  26. Re:How the hell is this different from credit card by DogDude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It costs the merchant more. It won't be implemented widely in the US, considering that Google's fees are higher than American Express.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  27. Sure by Exitar · · Score: 1

    And Google Buzz was the end of Facebook.

  28. Make me more relevant ads by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

    If Google wants to track my buying habits then use that info to push ads relevant to me, then by all means do so. I'm Vegan, so I don't need ads on steaks or Burger King. And if they've got some online coupons, then hook a brother up because being Vegan ain't cheap.

    --
    Can I bum a sig?
  29. Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't sell you medical coverage so you can deliberately ruin your health and cost me a fortune.

    If you are going to live an unhealthy lifestyle, that is fine. You *should* have to pay more in insurance, because I am sure as hell going to have to shell out more to keep you alive.

    You people wonder why insurance companies always try to get cheap and disallow expensive procedures....well....we can't exactly pay our staff if we just spent all our money saving the lives of people who are apparently trying to commit suicide by food.

    1. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then the insurance companies start dictating what you can and cannot eat otherwise you pay the "poor eater tax" or the products you can and cannot buy otherwise you pay the fill-in-the-blank tax. And then the list of allowable foods is influenced by those industries that stand to profit by getting their products on the list, and getting their competitors products blacklisted. Then we're just one step closer to corporatocracy.

    2. Re:Insurance by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      The health insurance companies are NOT struggling, FAR from it.

      They aren't needy, they are greedy!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  30. Shit Slashdot, OK, I guess I'll explain... by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

    How is this different from credit cards?

    Simple:
    A traditional credit card has raised digits and other information on the card itself -- It is not very secure. When you hand your credit card over to the waiter/waitress they can easily snap a pic with their camera phone and sell that data for $2 (wholesale) online.

    A magnetic strip bearing credit card has the above insecurities, plus a convenient stripe that can be used to input the information into a computer -- Fake "clone" cards can be created that have the same magnetic signature as your card, and actually, the mag stripe lessens security by giving the clerk a false sense that the card is legit. The clerks don't care anyhow, it's not their money -- As a test I actually use a cloned card printed with the name "Sir Thievey Thiefterson III" and always sign my name as: "This card is Stolen" on all receipts; It's been four years, and still only eight times has my ID been asked for -- at which time I tip the cashier and use my real card.

    A near field credit card works via RFID. RFID is not secure. It has no concept of a secret internal state and a challenge response system to authenticate that single (and only that single) transaction. It simply responds to query, any query, with your card info. Once again, we're putting the insecure data that's printed on the outside of the card into a more conveniently readable format, but this time it can also easily be scanned by malicious persons from several hundred feet away by using a Pringles can to shape their antenna's emissions.

    None of these data exchange formats have the concept of a secret internal state and a challenge response system to authenticate that single (and only that single) transaction. It takes a computation capable device to provide public key encryption. We solved the problem a long time ago with public / private key pairs -- Google Wallet is a technology that finally uses the solution to the problem of identity theft via "public" card information dissemination. The device and/or application containing the private key (the key itself, even) can itself be locked/unlocked with a pass-phrase.

    Note that this is not absolutely secure -- nothing is -- however, it is leaps and bounds more secure than the current dumb "hey here's a plain-text number to get my money" credit card system.

    As for traceability -- It's no more traceable than the credit card system, true. It could be made more private by using something in the vein of Bitcoin (there I said it), since it has over a hundred unique account tokens for a given wallet. However, you would need an intermediary to process the transactions on your behalf, and trust them with your identity -- I'm looking at you Google.

    In short: The Current Bullshit CC system is Broken as Hell! This is a step in the right direction, get on board or have your identity stolen like a dumbass.

    P.S. In 2001 my wallet was stolen from my locker while I was clearing a jam from a trash compactor. I canceled my cards & entire bank account, got new checks & cards, and STILL was fraudulently charged $557.00 via the old canceled bank card three weeks later -- Wells Fargo doesn't care if I followed their security guidelines to the letter and have written proof of such -- they don't care if their agents were the ones that fucked up and didn't take the stolen card off of my name, and it ended up linked to my new account: It's not their money, they don't care (I still "owe" them this money since I refuse to pay for others' mistakes, also, credit reporting companies don't care either).

    P.P.S. Cash is still the most secure, but carrying a lot of it is arguably not (Yes, I have been robbed at gunpoint after cashing a large check -- if I had digitally transferred the funds, I would not have lost the money).

    Your's truly,
    A FOSS Hacker that grew up in the ghettos of H-Town.

    1. Re:Shit Slashdot, OK, I guess I'll explain... by lip_spork · · Score: 1

      Didn't American Express try to introduce public key technology using smart-cards like a decade ago?

    2. Re:Shit Slashdot, OK, I guess I'll explain... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " but this time it can also easily be scanned by malicious persons from several hundred feet away by using a Pringles can to shape their antenna's emissions."

      no, it can not. FOr a test, why don't you make said cantenna(trivial) and get information from Pay Pass swipes? It's the EXACT SAME THING.

      And your wells Fargo story stinks to high heaven.
      As someone who was in the sane situation, including getting charged after the fact. It took me exactly 1 10 minute phone call.

      Even if true, there are some pretty trivial steps to get it taken care of from outside of Wells Fargo.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Shit Slashdot, OK, I guess I'll explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P.S. In 2001 my wallet was stolen from my locker while I was clearing a jam from a trash compactor. I canceled my cards & entire bank account, got new checks & cards, and STILL was fraudulently charged $557.00 via the old canceled bank card three weeks later...

      Dude, that sucks. When my debit card number got stolen and I got hit up with a bunch of fraudulent charges (2008), my credit union refunded the fraudulent charges to my account. Is Wells Fargo still that bad, or have they stepped up to the plate with identity protection?

    4. Re:Shit Slashdot, OK, I guess I'll explain... by cdrguru · · Score: 2

      You must have done something to piss someone off. While it sounds like this was an ATM card where limits don't apply - or at least didn't until recently - I have never heard of anyone losing out on lost or stolen cards.

      Of course, mostly that is dealing with credit cards, not debit/ATM cards where it is in the bank's interest to push as much liability onto you as possible. With credit cards it is always the merchant that loses out.

      This is something to keep in mind. With a credit card there are four agents involved - the card holder, the person using the number to steal, the merchant and the credit card company. Nobody ever loses except the merchant. With a debit card there are only three agents: the bank, the cardholder and the thief. Of course the thief never loses but it is absolutely in the bank's interest to put all of the problems onto the cardholder. Which they do as much as possible every time.

      So if you buy a meal in a resturant with a credit card and the number is sold (which it will, sooner or later) the merchant that takes it loses. It is a minor inconvenience to you the cardholder. But if you use a debit card they can get every time in your account, overdraft it and keep on taking. The bank will push it all back on you saying you were careless or somehow else at fault.

      So remind me again why anyone would ever use a debit card?

    5. Re:Shit Slashdot, OK, I guess I'll explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great post. Also... H-Town, represent!

    6. Re:Shit Slashdot, OK, I guess I'll explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, how long have you worked for Google?

    7. Re:Shit Slashdot, OK, I guess I'll explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a test I actually use a cloned card printed with the name "Sir Thievey Thiefterson III" and always sign my name as: "This card is Stolen" on all receipts; It's been four years, and still only eight times has my ID been asked for -- at which time I tip the cashier and use my real card.

      It blows my my mind that you were effectively caught, and then let go because you tipped them and gave them a real card to complete the purchase. Shouldn't you have been questioned by the cops??

    8. Re:Shit Slashdot, OK, I guess I'll explain... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But if you use a debit card they can get every time in your account, overdraft it and keep on taking. The bank will push it all back on you saying you were careless or somehow else at fault.

      Actually, most banks today will only hold you responsible for up to a certain amount (e.g. $50) for losses incurred on a stolen or otherwise fraudulently used debit card, if you report the offending transaction within a predetermined period of time. It usually takes longer for them to go through their checklist before you get the money back, but you do get it back.

      At least that's how it works for banks I dealt with so far.

    9. Re:Shit Slashdot, OK, I guess I'll explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So remind me again why anyone would ever use a debit card?"

      Because the contract with my bank states that I'm only responsible if they can prove that i acted in gross negligence. (I live in Germany, maybe there are no banks that offer such contracts in the states...) So it is true that it is in the bank's interest to push as much liability onto you as possible but some still correctly understand that not doing so is a feature for their customers.

      Also there are various details that sometimes make using a debit card cheaper or the merchant doesn't take credit cards (in Germany many still don't).

    10. Re:Shit Slashdot, OK, I guess I'll explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P.S. In 2001 my wallet was stolen from my locker while I was clearing a jam from a trash compactor. I canceled my cards & entire bank account, got new checks & cards, and STILL was fraudulently charged $557.00 via the old canceled bank card three weeks later -- Wells Fargo doesn't care if I followed their security guidelines to the letter and have written proof of such -- they don't care if their agents were the ones that fucked up and didn't take the stolen card off of my name, and it ended up linked to my new account: It's not their money, they don't care (I still "owe" them this money since I refuse to pay for others' mistakes, also, credit reporting companies don't care either).

      And you contacted your state attorney general and the FDIC about this flagrant violation of Reg E, right? I mean, that's some pretty serious shit.

  31. Re:How the hell is this different from credit card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Credit companies and banks are highly regulated. Google is an advertising agency that boasts about its data mining abilities.

  32. The summary has it backwards by Mysteray · · Score: 1

    The summary has it backwards: Your health insurance company is interested in your calorie intake and the police are ones interested in your Doritos intake. Nobody cares about the soduim.

  33. No confirmation step by zhiwenchong · · Score: 2

    What puzzles me is that there is no confirmation step required in these contactless payment systems.
    When I buy stuff with my chip-based debit or credit card, I'm asked to enter a PIN. Else, I have to physically swipe the card to ensure there is no ambiguity as to whether or not I meant to pay with my card of choice.

    With a contactless system, I could be wanting to pay with my credit card, but if I accidentally held my cell phone too close to the reader, it would debit the amount from my phone instead of my card. Why can't there be a screen that pops-up on the phone that says "Touch button to confirm payment"? This seems to me to be a major design flaw.

    1. Re:No confirmation step by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You can do this, right now, with most CC and DC cards.see: PayPass.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:No confirmation step by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Actually the wallet app has to be unlocked by pin before use.

      also, the NFC antenna is off when the screen is dark.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    3. Re:No confirmation step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might try actually reading the FAQ on the Google Wallet site. It says there's a PIN that you have to type in which is in addition to the normal phone unlock. Presumably, the NFC connection only works when the phone is unlocked and the PIN has been typed in.

      I wouldn't put it past them to monitor and log instances where you could have paid with your phone but chose another method, but it seems they've got the accidentally paying part figured out.

  34. How this differs from a credit card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Credit card companies only get the total amount spent at a retailer. They don't get the list of items purchased as that information stayed with the merchant.

    If Google Wallet or any other NFC implementation allows the transmission of transaction details (i.e. list of items purchased) to the credit card companies then this is can indeed become a new way of invading people's privacy.

  35. cash not purely anonymous by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I remember stories that FBI would record the serial numbers of robbery cash, usually $100s. They they'd wait for the numbers to show up at Reserve Banks which often scan the serial numbers. Then the FBI would home in sub-banks and merchants to identify usage locations.

  36. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw this when I went to Japan in 2005, it's called osaifu-keitai.

  37. America, welcome to the rest of the world. by digitig · · Score: 1

    In Switzerland and elsewhere I can already pay for vending machine purchases with my phone. In Hong Kong I can use my Octopus card.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    1. Re:America, welcome to the rest of the world. by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but likely by charging to the phone bill via SMS or some other archaic method... not really the same.

  38. trade-off in not having personal spending records by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Which can be used to better manage money and grow wealth.

    Similar to weather you log into Google or not. You get more efficient searches when you log in.

  39. Re:How the hell is this different from credit card by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

    Only in that banks don't serve you web ads. This helps Google get even better informed about what you thus tailor ads to your psyche.

    Because, please, the purpose of stalking and data-mining the hell out of you is not just to sell you wonderful goods that will make your life better but to learn the marketing tricks that better fool you into getting what you don't really need.

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
  40. This is old news by gmpassos · · Score: 0

    You talk like if no one is tracking your credit card!

  41. Re:How the hell is this different from credit card by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This kind of system offers significantly better security than CCs.

    If the system is designed well the stores you visit will never see your financial information (and never have an opportunity to lose it). Encrypt the account information on the phone with a psuedo-random number that is generated every 60s (along the lines of SecureID), send the encrypted data to the store, the store forwards that encrypted string, along with the amount of purchase to the payment server, the server responds back with a simple 'approve/deny' response. This also applies to card skimmers, if someone skims your account details, they're valid for 60s or less.

    The system can also be password protected, or even biometricly protected if you really wanted to make things easy; which is better than I've heard of CCs being able to do.

  42. Re:Rogue group announces alternative to Google wal by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Google is just using paypass. This is not Google proprietary monetary transaction system any more then any Credit Card.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  43. Re:Hyperbally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please use a writing style obfuscator. It would be an improvement to your grammatical contributions to the net and protect your privacy.

  44. Re:How the hell is this different from credit card by iceaxe · · Score: 1

    It's not. The payment will still go through your credit/debit card account, unless you sign up for a Google pre-paid account, which is just another debit account anyway. (And is only 'google' in name - google won't be handling your money.)

    Google is just providing a new way to access that means of payment, in a hopefully convenient and secure way. I say hopefully, because this thing is beta, with as yet unknown bugs and problems still to be worked out.

    --
    WALSTIB!
  45. In the off chance someone wants facts by geekoid · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:In the off chance someone wants facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Google Wallet is designed and engineered to enable safe, secure payments."
      "The secure encryption technology of MasterCard PayPass protects your payment card credentials as they are transferred from the phone to the contactless reader."

      AFAIK those are lies. PayPass does not prevent anyone from using a RFID reader to complete a transaction you didn't authorize. (Google Wallet seemingly needs to be activated to initiate a data transfer.) But once Google Wallet is unlocked any reader can actively read the information that is needed for a transaction. Passive listening to an ongoing transaction is also possible.

      If the credit card company indemnifies you from fraudulent transactions that doesn't make it less secure than a normal credit card. But the above link still contains lies and not only facts.

  46. Cash does not make you anonymous by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    If you live in a city, you are on camera anyway.

    You are traceable - how many people with your "taste" in clothes and your fine figure live in your area?

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    1. Re:Cash does not make you anonymous by russotto · · Score: 1

      You are traceable - how many people with your "taste" in clothes and your fine figure live in your area?

      Thanks to the efforts of Levy Strauss and Ray Kroc, quite a few.

    2. Re:Cash does not make you anonymous by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      And they are all your build/shape?

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  47. Fragmentation and stagnation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps Google should first figure out how to keep everyone up to date?
    It's really going to suck when someone takes advantage of some newly discovery vulnerability/hole in the security of this after either the manufacturer or carrier decides to not update my device and I'm stuck with 18 months left in my contract...

  48. Not anonymous by sjbe · · Score: 1

    What do you mean "try" using cash? Southwest Airlines lists it as one of their accepted forms of payment:

    Likely to be followed by a nice groping... err, "enhanced" patdown by your friendly neighborhood TSA bouncers. Maybe you like to pay to get felt up?

    That's one instance where you'll have to present ID anyway so there is really little point in using cash in a futile attempt to be anonymous.

    1. Re:Not anonymous by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Isn't it illegal to refuse cash [but accept other forms of payment] ? That's why it says 'legal tender' on the bills, no ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  49. Jhc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starting to read like wired magazine, here.
    Every issue:
    How x beat y
    The death of x
    Your future is y
    The end of z
    Inside the x

    By my count, they have less than the accuracy of a coin flip. My fave is the alarmist misleading and inaccurate front page headline. The slightly less alarmist index entry, and the very thin on any actual information you can't find with the most cursory Internet search article, itself. Wedged between ads meant to look like articles.

  50. Frictionless payment you say? by youn · · Score: 1

    That definitely is bad news for stripper & escort girl afficionados :)

    --
    Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    1. Re:Frictionless payment you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, you're going to pay them by swiping a phone at a terminal!? I thought those sorts of things were usually paid with by paper money...

  51. Re:Hyperbally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aye Matey, mixing up your speak will mess with those land lubbers.

  52. proofread much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stores can user information about your Doritos purchases to rearrange their wares;

    Stores can user information?

  53. Creating a data commons? by 0-9a-f · · Score: 1

    Is this information really necessarily private, or is it private just because we worry that it leaves us somehow more vulnerable? Have any of us really thought through what "vulnerable" might mean?

    Some alternative thinking: Our data, ourselves at The Boston Globe.

    --
    With each breath in, a flower somewhere opens; with each breath out, a flower withers away. In between lies beauty.
  54. Anonymity is obsolete by iamacat · · Score: 1

    "Computer, report location of Cmdr Riker"

    The future is privacy through access control, law and mutually assured harassment. Once you can easily tell who exactly Googled you, they will be a lot more respectful.

  55. Another story about Google posted by Timothy by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

    Another hysterical headline. Can we please stop doing this? I vote Timothy is no longer allowed to post Google stories--clearly Google killed his puppy or something and he simply can't get past it.

  56. They don't sell YOUR information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google does not sell your information directly, that would put them out of business since their cash-cow IS your information; instead they sell target markets, like instead of selling the info on what Mr. Anonymous Coward bought, they would sell advertisement space for people who bought X, Y, Z Products at N Location during the past month/year.

  57. Expansive solution that hurt fundamental rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the progress from paper money to NFC payment?

    What if there are floods of false transactions? 1T/s false transactions? Can your system handle them? What about more?

  58. the W by odirex · · Score: 1

    Google Wave called, it wants its logo back.

  59. Really editors? by OpenLegs · · Score: 1

    I can see it now: "Ambulance unit 23, please report to 983 Columbia Ave for a well-being check, we just got a call from owner's HMO saying they got data the owner just bought a ton of junk food but is diabetic and near a heart attack. HMO says only deliver to St. Joseph Memorial." "Dispatch this is unit 23, owner is out walking his dog while kids are celebrating a birthday party, false alarm" Yeah, that won't piss off your customers. You accept garbage data and act on it, you might as well lock your doors and put that CLOSED sign in the window permanently. Most HMO's are not that stupid.

  60. prop 215 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope it works at the vapor room

  61. This is total hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. This isn't the end of anonymous shopping, because you don't have to use it.
    2. I use NFC payments every day at 7-11 and other places (and to ride the train). The only thing shops like 7-11 get from me (other than the money) is the serial number of my "card" (in the phone, but it could be a simple card as many people use).

    Since they don't know my name or anything else, I am not sure what good it will go them to know that I buy a bottle of green tea every day. Even if they got my name from the provider (Edy, Japan Rail), I am not sure how much it would really help them or hurt me. If they can data mine that people buy a lot of item X at store Y, then maybe they can properly stock it. On the other hand, they can use the stock-keeping records to get that.

    At any rate, almost all electronic NFC payment systems have a totally anonymous option. The only bad side to using it is that if you lose your card/phone, it's the same as losing cash, someone else can pick it up and use it with no problem.

  62. Devil's Avocado by thelandp · · Score: 1

    (Ok Devil's advocate here, just for fun.)

    Who cares?

    Let's look at each of your best attempts at a scary consequence.

    "Stores can use information about your Doritos purchases to rearrange their wares" - sounds good to me, helping to make sure the shelf hasn't run out of what I want. Why be so protective of information which is expressed so publicly anyway whenever you shop?

    "Google could push coupons via its new Google Offers service" - coupons are an annoying way to create artificial loyalty, but I don't think it started with Google Wallet. What might be new here is how tailored the coupons are to your preferences, but I don't see how that's a problem either.

    "your health insurance company might be interested in your sodium intake" - of course their interested. Now consider the two options: (a) they don't get information about your individual health, or (b) they do get information. In (a), the insurance premium has to be the same for everyone, regardless of health. If you happen to unhealthy, you're better off, paying the average instead of above average. BUT if you're healthy you're worse off, effectively subsidizing other people's poor lifestyle. This is unfair on those who are healthy, and bad for the group since it rewards bad health as an individual strategy.

    Come on man, let go and be part of the google hive mind. One of us, one of us.

    (Not sure whether I was really convincing there ... thoughts?)

    --

    -- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
    1. Re:Devil's Avocado by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, as someone who uses NFC payments several times a day....
      Electronic cash is like normal cash in that... they usually don't know who you are, they only have a serial number unless you register it.
      Even if you register it and they do know who you are, your phone/IC card in general doesn't know WHAT you bought, just that you spent money.
      (You can tell the difference between train/bus vs. Store purchases on Suica, though).
      So your health insurance company won't know how much salt you took in or whatever by looking at the records in your phone.
      On the other hand, even if, say, the grocery store logged *all: of this info, all they would know is "Serial number 3388-2663-7652 bought these items".

      I guess if you use a special loyalty app, then they will know who you are *and* what you bought, but that is over and above the normal NFC payments.
      What's more, that's true with current loyalty cards as well. I have a point-card with the electronics retailer because I don't care if they know what computer parts I bought, and a 10% discount isn't bad. I don't have one with the drug store, because I don't need them reporting on how many condemns I bought each month.

  63. New features in version 2.0 by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    You can scan the Doritos barcode with your phone camera and a smiley face will show if it's a good idea to buy them. If it would cause your health premiums to rise due to high sodium consumption a picture of Wayne Night will appear shaking his finger and a sample of "unh-unh-uh, you didn't say the magic word" will play over and over again.

    Actually it would be funnier it Nedryed you at the checkout and you had to take the Doritos back, humiliated while the other people in the line glared at you.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  64. really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is google going to do? Ban the sale of V for Vendetta masks?

  65. Slashdot: News for the Privileged by mitch.swampman · · Score: 1

    Yall do understand that a lot of people can't afford a smartphone right?

  66. It could enable price comparisons for consumers by jools33 · · Score: 1

    Google wallet could also be a good thing for the consumer. It would mean that all items bought this way will have their prices tracked and stored in google. This will mean that users should be able to run price comparisons over all stores that are compatible with this tech - this means you can work out before you go grocey shopping - which store will offer you the best price for your weekly shopping list.

  67. For Grid's Sake! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

    Sheesh, people. Stop worrying about about all the silly little things. If you don't want your grocery store collecting information on you, use fake information when you sign up for your card like I do! Problem solved.

    There's a bigger issue at stake here, but I haven't seen anyone else mention it yet.

    Have you heard of Michael's? The nationwide craft store? Thieves managed to swap out 90 separate credit card readers without anybody knowing, in Michael's stores around the country. They've been snarfing credit card data for quite a while.

    With NFC, the thieves will have a field day! They don't even need to swap out readers; just stick your sniffer's antenna somewhere close enough to read the NFC transaction. What do you want to bet that passive receiving can be done from a couple of feet away? Then they just sniff the transaction and away they go.

    What's that you say? Secure communication? Hahahaha.

    There isn't a major credit card system in existence in the world today that hasn't been hacked at one time or other, and most of those "bugs" just got whitewashed over, not really fixed. Hell, it didn't take long at all to hack the "unique, secure" id from RFID tags and clone them.

    The probability that somebody will find a serious vulnerability in the system is close to 1. Combine that with reading from a distance, and it will be a free-for-all.

    This is such an outrageously bad idea, I can hardly sit still and not yell at people about it. I have already berated one software company for planning to support NFC in its apps.

    1. Re:For Grid's Sake! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "use fake information when you sign up for your card like I do! Problem solved."

      Yes, if your "problem" is "how do I become guilty of fraud for wanting to protect my privacy?".

      How about not being dismissive about what really is a problem? You don't have to have the answers; you can simply say, "Yeah, that's a tough one; there are issues on all sides, and it's hard to find a balance between them that works for everyone." But to deny the problem because you're afraid of the complexity is bullshit. Also, people see right through it, so you just look weak and scared.

    2. Re:For Grid's Sake! by AlexBirch · · Score: 1

      Google Wallet doesn't need to have a static number like a credit card does. Just imagine if they changed the number transmitted hourly? Then they could detect exactly where the sniffers are located.

  68. Re:How the hell is this different from credit card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry. They do nothing of the kind. It's just a system to use RFID instead of a magstripe reader.

  69. I fixed the article... by cyberfin · · Score: 1

    ...headline for you:

    "Google Wallet may mark the End of Anonymous Shopping "

    There. Much better.

    --
    "I'm taking this loop off." - Jack O'Neill
  70. NFC google wallet isn't RFID by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    It's closer to contactless chip-and-pin. It includes a secure element (transactor) in the device, it's challenge response and the transaction takes place inside the secure element instead of the credential being passed outside the device where it can be copied.

    I'm not saying you can't defraud it, but it's a lot harder than RFID, magstripe or raised letters.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  71. Europe is already there: US just lags behind... by Dr+La · · Score: 0

    Here in the Netherlands, for years already most payment in shops is done by pin (bankpass plus pin-code): in fact, some shopping chains are now talking of (and experimenting with) abolishing cash payment altogether.

    So Google wallet really does not introduce anything new: for Europe at least.

    For the US, who is decidely archaic in its monetary system, it might be new but that is only because the US is lagging behind the rest of the world in these things (many NW European countries abolished paper cheques ages ago for example - all money transfer is done electronically directly from account to account here).

    --
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
    1. Re:Europe is already there: US just lags behind... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      ...For the US, who is decidely archaic in its monetary system, it might be new but that is only because the US is lagging behind the rest of the world in these things (many NW European countries abolished paper cheques ages ago for example - all money transfer is done electronically directly from account to account here).

      Uh, that "decidely archaic" system we call "cash" still allows for true anonymous shopping, which from the sounds of it has pretty much been deemed illegal in the Netherlands.

      Sometimes "old-fashioned" still has value to those in the tinfoil hat fashion circles. And for those who aren't, it's still nice to know you have that option still available for purchasing quite a few things in life.

    2. Re:Europe is already there: US just lags behind... by Dr+La · · Score: 1

      No argument with that. Progress has its drawbacks, notably in the privacy realm. From cellphones tracking your movement to pyaments tracking your spending.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
    3. Re:Europe is already there: US just lags behind... by Dr+La · · Score: 1

      It keeps being funny though, to see the typical American reaction to any suggestion that the US might not always be on the technological forefront of things. Up to Americans then starting to hail the perceived merits of old fashioned systems...
      In terms of monetary transactions, the US is decidedly lagging behind the rest of the western world. Paper cheques: monetary clay tablets, really.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
    4. Re:Europe is already there: US just lags behind... by Dr+La · · Score: 1

      And it even more fun to see that mentioning this, will result in your comment being moderated "Troll"....

      --
      Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
    5. Re:Europe is already there: US just lags behind... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      It keeps being funny though, to see the typical American reaction to any suggestion that the US might not always be on the technological forefront of things. Up to Americans then starting to hail the perceived merits of old fashioned systems... In terms of monetary transactions, the US is decidedly lagging behind the rest of the western world. Paper cheques: monetary clay tablets, really.

      While I certainly see your point in us ignorant Americans actually defending an archaic model, chances are we'll also "lag behind" in things like electronic identity theft/cloning as well.

      Sonys PSN database got hacked. Imagine that on a much broader scale, when your entire legal identity is sitting inside a (now cloned) chip in "your" cell phone.

      And I fail to see your overall point here with the US model. I've paid bills and received payments in 100% electronic form for years now, and I don't know of anyone else who also does not have that same ability. I was paying for fuel via RFID "swipe" over fifteen years ago, this tech is hardly "new" by any means. Of course, we ALSO have the ability to write "cheques" and still use that non-traceable green stuff called "cash". What you may call "archaic" I call "flexible".

    6. Re:Europe is already there: US just lags behind... by Dr+La · · Score: 1

      Identity theft is not really an issue here. It seems to be more of an issue in the US.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
  72. Re:How the hell is this different from credit card by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

    Fool you into getting what you don't really need. That is incorrect.

    We are adults. That means we have the awesome responsibility for making decisions about our own lives. They aren't tricking us into anything. WE decide we want to buy something. WE decide to spend the money. If Google or Apple or any other company shows us a product, WE have the option to say "no thank you."

    I seem to be defending Google a lot on this topic but really, this is like blaming McDonalds because I chose to eat supersized Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese meals every day and ended up getting fat. All Google is doing is finding out what we like and saying, "Hey, you might like this too!"

    Google isn't fooling anyone about anything. What's happening is that we are fooling ourselves into thinking that we HAVE to buy this, or NEED to buy that. Google doesn't need to fool us because we are already fools of our own making.

    --
    who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
  73. So call for a government solution by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    If it's important then people have to stand up to government and let them know. It's right there in the declaration of independence. Rights which are earned only by demanding them and willing to sacrifice for. The US Federal Government is mandated to create a national currency. It's about time we had an electronic version. The only way we are going to get an anonymous monetary system is by a national movement. All the credit card companies are making so much money they are and will continue to lobby against it.

    And it is a very tough sell. How can you sell a system that makes black markets possible? How do you sell black markets? For anyone to be able to buy and sell weapons, drugs and other contraband, and to bribe, or hire another to kill? I doubt US citizens have any fight in them or the wisdom to protect the right to be corrupt. And credit companies will continue to make money while the US currency loses all credibility. I truly believe there will be a monetary coup where people will choose to bank in diversified international monetary funds, all very automatic. It is virtually impossible for the US government anymore to control money like they did way back in the day trying to outlaw gold and silver. In this day and age to do the equivalent would be to ban the stock market and or to require government approval of international stock and bond trades. Simply not possible.

    For an international currency the world will demand privacy because countries will never trust one another and people of other countries know better than to trust their government or any other government.

  74. Chance would be a fine thing. by One+Monkey · · Score: 1

    I don't think anyone actually bothers to track purchases of individual customers. Or if they do then they don't pay much mind. I have this curse, it is the subject of jokes amongst myself and my nearest and dearest. If I like a product, I mean really like it, so that I become brand loyal and all that crap the suppliers go out of business or they stop making whatever it is that I want to buy.

    I live in the UK and back in the mid nineties we briefly got a taste of Pretzel Flipz chocolate covered pretzels. I absolutely loved the White Fudge variety you now can't get in the UK for love nor money. A takeout near where we live did a particular type of burger I ate too many of and shortly thereafter the place changed hands and menus. A short while ago the grocer just opposite where we live stopped stocking both flapjacks, which I inhale, and a particular brand of glucose energy drink which I thought was superior to the leading brand. That's just the start. I can't help noticing that all of these items were totally bad for me. So maybe they were watching, and decided to put my health before their profits... maybe...

    --
    www.nodicerpg.com - Some RP stuff for free, some not so for free, but still cheap.
    1. Re:Chance would be a fine thing. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Whenever they bring out a new improved product you prefer the old one, am I right?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  75. fearmonger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean that they might rearrange their shelves to be more convenient to my needs, and send my coupons that i might actually use?

    That's horrible.

  76. Judging by the logo... by XmasterX · · Score: 1

    this service will last long ;)

  77. Kroger "discount card" by leswt · · Score: 1

    Kroger uses its "Discount" card to gather information about the shopping basket (what things are bought together). This information is used for stocking and shelving.

  78. And for the phoneless? by Dakiraun · · Score: 1

    Evil data-mining and tracking issues aside, there are still some of us out there that (thank the gods) don't have or want a cell phone/smart phone. Seems their approach is flawed in choosing a means that is not completely common-place.

    1. Re:And for the phoneless? by Reapman · · Score: 1

      Smugness and wanting to point out how much you hate cellphones/smart phones aside (thank the gods for that!), I think Google's target market is those people that already use their Android product - not every single person on the planet. This is like saying NBC is dumb, because they only make products for TV's and not everyone has a TV. Numbers that I can dig up are showing that cellphone usage rates in the USA is over 80% - I think Google's safe.

  79. Let me give Mark Zuckerberg my SSN by assertation · · Score: 1

    Gosh, remembering how Google disrespected people's privacy with Google Buzz and the stunt they pulled with white washing search results for China on "Tienanmen Square" I would just as soon trust Facebook my social security number and my ATM PIN.

    Geeze, I forgot to mention Google and Apple tracking people's location with their mobile devices.

    Anyone who trusts their financial information with these companies is being short sighted.

  80. The US isn't the first place to do this by TUOggy · · Score: 1

    They've been doing this in Japan for a while now. They use a pre paid service where you load cash onto your phone for use later. It's actually one of the reasons why smartphones haven't taken off like they have in the states, as most don't offer the option.
    It's convenient, and as others have pointed out, it's a lot more secure than the current system.
    When I saw this article, I wasn't afraid that my my purchase data would be sold to marketers (it already is... face it, there is little data in this world that's actually private anymore), but surprised it took this long to do it.

  81. Thank you? by TheJabberwocky · · Score: 1

    I would love to be pushed coupons for items I buy. Where do I sign up?

  82. Why bother having anything backing the money? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    We don't now.

    You think the bank really has your cash in a big pile of money in vaults waiting to be spent?

    I mean, wow, that's like a 4 year old's concept of money.
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Why bother having anything backing the money? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      We do, in fact, have something backing our money right now: the government's promise to provide you with various services, to defend you from foreign enemies, and to imprison people who would threaten your rights. That is what differentiates dollars/euros/yen/yuan/etc. from Chuck-E-Cheese tokens and Bitcoin. The value of currency comes from the power of the government to collect taxes and to deprive those who do not pay taxes of their property/liberty -- in order to own a home, operate a business, or live anything other than the life of a homeless vagabond, one needs their country's currency, and hence that currency is valuable and can be used for trade.

      Everything else is derived from that. A check is worth the amount written on it because you can take it to a bank and get that amount of money (in extreme cases, you might not actually be able to get physical currency, but that is an edge case). Credit cards can be used to buy things because merchants receive money from the bank. This is how digital cash should work as well: a digital cash token should be similar to a check, in that you deposit money with the bank in order to get it and the recipient can exchange the token for that amount of money, but it should be different in that it should allow for anonymous transfers.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  83. Scare tactics by ashidosan · · Score: 1

    information about your Doritos purchases to rearrange their wares

    Truly, this is a nightmare made real.

  84. Re:How the hell is this different from credit card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only they would do it this way. Unfortunately less secure systems are more profitable it seems...

    (i.e. if security was this easy then why would Sony just leave everything out there to begin with?)

  85. Re:How the hell is this different from credit card by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    You could do a lot better than what you propose. The merchant should send an "invoice" to the payment device. The payment device displays the invoice and gets the user to approve it. The payment device adds a timestamp and unique transaction ID to the invoice, signs it, and returns it to the merchant. The merchant presents that to the bank and gets the approve. If the payment device uses secure hardware (probably not happening in this case) then your entire transaction is secure end-to-end and immune to replay attacks, cloning, etc.

    Credit cards are simply obsolete. It isn't a shared "secret" if you share that secret with every store you visit...