Black (& Decker) and blue

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] While I was frittering away my time trapped on a train parked at West Byfleet the other day by reading the fascinating biography, “Roberto Mancini: A Footballing Life: The Full Story” (Luca Caioli), I came across an interesting phrase. Telling the story of Roberto’s transfer to Sampdoria in 1982, the Bologna coach says that the fans were angry because they thought the fee disclosed for their star forward “The Boy” Mancini way too low. Little did they know that a truckload of buckshee cash had come back back down the highway from Genoa. Hardly surprising given the murky world of football transfers, and hardly confined to Italy (since the same sort of thing was going on here in England at the same time, with bags of cash being delivered via motorway service stations). The reason it caught my eye, though, was the language. The Italian raconteur referred to it as a “Black & Decker” transaction. Why? I can’t fathom it, but if any Italian blog readers know the origin of the phrase please do let me know!

I’m not entirely sure that the Black & Decker transactions are in football’s past, and cash is still a menace corrupting the beautiful game despite recent off-the-field innovations such as KYC, AML and ATF regulations. Incidentally, it seems that football-related persons are not subject to the same stringent AML provisions as mere peasants such as you and me.

Section 5.B is entitled “Foreign Exchange Undertakings” and states that the government must provide for “the unrestricted import and export of all foreign currencies to and from the UK, as well as the unrestricted exchange and conversion of these currencies into US dollars, euros or Swiss francs”.

[From Fifa’s demand to be exempt of UK money-laundering legislation | Football | The Guardian]

I hate to say WTF, but seriously WTF? Why on earth should they even want to import and export unrestricted amounts of currency? Churlish observers might see this as a provision relating to tax evasion, in which case shouldn’t their senior officials be arrested for conspiring to defraud the national tax authorities? Footballers aside, though, I’m sure the AML laws (and the high penalties imposed on non-US banks by the US authorities) have virtually eradicated the problem. I’m sure someone, somewhere, has the cost-benefit analysis for AML, don’t they?

I’ve complained many times about the pointless nature of anti-money laundering laws. They impose very high costs and force banks to spy on their customers, but they are utterly ineffective as a weapon against criminal activity.

[From World Bank Study Shows How Anti-Money Laundering Rules Hurt the Poor – Forbes]

Well, perhaps the problem is that the authorities don’t enforce the AML rules rigorously enough (and, bizarrely, continue to print high value banknotes). Time for a crackdown.

U.S. customs agents will soon start testing prepaid scanners in order to stop money laundering. The device comes as part of a move to comply with U.S. Treasury rules that say individuals crossing the board must declare when they are in possession of more than $10,000 in prepaid cards.

[From Scanning Prepaid Cards At The Border Won’t Stop Money Laundering – PaymentsJournal]

This is in equal measure hilarious and pointless. I have to say, on my numerous visits to the US I’ve often wondered why the customs form asks you to declare if you are carrying more than $10,000 into the US (most Federal Reserve notes, about two-thirds of them in fact, have gone the other way and are unlikely to ever be repatriated) but not whether you, for example, have a debit card linked to an offshore bank account or a bank account in a jurisdiction known for lax enforcement of money-laundering controls and a track record of covering up the movement of funds for decidedly unsavoury characters (such as the UK, for example).

You have to suspect if that if the US customs agents were able to invent some sort of magic box to detect smuggled cash and prepaid cards with a balance exceeding $10,000 then the people who are actual criminals would simply shimmy.

“The Chinese market is really big on money laundering. The good thing about art from that perspective is you can always say I bought it for $100 and now it’s worth $10 million. It’s very difficult to argue with that because of poor transparency of the art price.”

[From Chinese Businessmen Are Purchasing Art To Launder Their Money – Business Insider]

Well, the US continues to print $100 bills while complaining about money laundering, but it’s nice to know that some people out there are taking the problem seriously though.

Switzerland is proposing to ban cash payments in excess of 100,000 francs ($107,500), including on watches and real estate, and wants to tighten the due diligence requirements for banks to prevent money laundering.

[From Swiss to Ban Big Cash Purchases to Curb Money Laundering – Bloomberg]

Did you see that? What a crackdown. They are banning the cash purchase of watches costing more than $100,000. Who says we’re not all in this together?

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Money is dirty, but so are we!

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] A great many years ago when I was involved in the pilot of the Mondex electronic cash scheme in Swindon, I do remember that there were some groups of retailers who rather liked the idea of shifting away from cash to electronic money for reasons that were nothing to do with economy or efficiency. I can remember talking to a hairdresser somewhere in the town centre near where the Mondex “shop” was placed, and she told me that she liked the idea of doing away with cash because cash was filthy and she had to keep washing her hands all day because of touching it. I think somebody in a bakery mentioned the same to a colleague of mine. Lucre really is filthy.

testingcash

with kind permission of MasterCard

Roughly around the same time I saw a magazine article about US currency that made the point that not only is money dirty it is germ-ridden and I added this to the anti-cash charge sheet. In fact I referred to it a decade later in one of my first ever blog posts, called “End the cash menace now!“. From time to time over the years, I’ve brought this up as one of my general and persistent complaints about cash. Just the other day I read a report from MasterCard that

On average, European banknotes and coins contain 26,000 bacteria while sterling has 18,200 bacteria. New currency contains about 2,400 bacteria.

[From More than half of Brits fear germ risk from filthy money – with good reason | Metro News]

Ha! The Europeans have filthier lucre than our Sterling and scientists have proven it. Apparently banknotes are still contaminated with some potentially nasty bugs. So, how much of string is this for the anti-cash bow? We’ve known for many years that cash is dirty and carries all sorts of contaminants.

As an aside, if there’s one thing more prevalent than poo on our money, it’s Bolivian marching powder.

[From An idea for a dirty story]

I don’t have the article to hand right now, but I do remember reading a few years ago that the prevalence of cocaine on US banknotes is such that detecting the presence of cocaine is no longer probable cause for the search and seizure of the cash. (I’ve no idea what to Google in order to verify this, so would appreciate input from any US law enforcement types who are reading the blog!)

It isn’t just the cash that is filthy. ATMs in the UK are also reservoirs of pestilence. And sadly, so are plastic cards (in fact, in a spirit of scientific enquiry, I should report that one study in London found a higher percentage of contaminated cards!). It seems as if a lot of things, in the UK at least, are absolutely filthy. Now, coincidentally, shortly after reading the MasterCard, it happened that one of my favourite journalists, Wendy Grossman, sent me an old article about the history of cash from Discover magazine in 1998, again making reference to the poisonous characteristics of the means of exchange. (Wendy has form in this area – read on…)

Unfortunately, I don’t think the dirty money meme plays into our electronic money hands as much as we’d like. Remember, it’s mobile phones that are going to get rid of cash, not cards. And here the news is not good. The average mobile phone is even dirtier than the bank notes! Once again, in the UK:

Faecal bacteria are present on 26% of hands in the UK, 14% of banknotes and 10% of credit cards,

[From BBC News – Handwashing: Why are the British so bad at washing their hands?]

Yes, money is filthy, but so are we. The article goes on to mention that one in six mobile phones are dirtier than toilet seats. I’m afraid, much as I hate the horrible stuff, germs aren’t the nail in cash’s coffin that I’d hope, merely a contributory factor in its decline.

My final piece of evidence that we are unlikely to be able to use the filthy, germ ridden, infectious nature of money as a propaganda tool in the war on cash comes from our annual Forum. A couple of years ago one of the speakers at the forum, or one of the panellists (I can’t remember which), made a remark about the propensity of money to pass on communicable diseases. Wendy was there at the time and she immediately countered the speaker by making an unequivocal offer to lick any money that Forum delegates might wish to present. Throwing herself on the barbed wire for science, so to speak, earned her a place in Forum folklore. To the best of my knowledge she remains hale and hearty, but if she does develop any diseases that can be traced back to any notes or coins present that day, I will report it back with some excitement.

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Perhaps the shift to the “something present” transaction is coming sooner rather than later

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] I read an excellent piece on Forbes called “Tokenization and the collapse of the credit card model“. It was written by Matt Harris from Bain Capital Ventures and he set out a key issue that is shaping the strategies of many of our clients right now, and shaping them from a variety of directions. The article was about Braintree’s introduction of a kind of sort-of-federated sort-of-tokenisation to the US online payments market. It’s a live play at the “something present” payment model that we been talking to our clients about for some time. Braintree are serious players: they have something like a fifth of the US cardholder population on file already (and a high proportion of the online active early adopters) and they have convinced some of their merchant base (e.g., Uber, LevelUp, HotelTonight and so on) to share their payment credentials. If you register your card details at Merchant A then you don’t need to re-register them at Merchant B. You have sort-of wallet in the cloud that is nothing to do with banks, schemes or the merchants themselves.

Truly, identity is the new money. But how does Merchant B recognise you as the shopper from Merchant A? They collect the “fingerprints” of your laptop or phone or whatever. Obviously, I would prefer a mechanism based on a more functional identity infrastructure, but this is an interesting place to start. Matt points out why not everyone in the marketplace might be happy with this combination of convenience and security.

This is horribly threatening for all of the incumbent players in the four party model: traditional acquirers, issuer and the networks. Plain vanilla merchant acquirers will struggle to compete with Braintree online and Square offline as their tokenized user bases grow. The issuers lose their ability to differentiate. Once tokenized and hidden, any given card product is far more vulnerable to being displaced, as the issuers have already learned from PayPal

[From Tokenization And The Collapse Of The Credit Card Payment Model – Forbes]

Matt then asks a killer question, a question I have asked issuers before now. How do you stay “top of wallet” when there is no real wallet? This is a fascinating topic, largely because no-one knows what the right answer is yet. There are people who work for card issuers who have a lifetime’s experience in forcing a product to top of wallet. They know exactly how much you have to spend, the mix between media and rewards, the right messages to get over. But for APIs? Given that consumers may no longer see the payment brand at POS (as I already don’t when I use, say, Hailo), how can you persuade them to select your bank, card, network, mobile payment service or whatever at setup time when they configure their retailer app? I did get involved in a discussion about this a couple of weeks ago, and one of the suggestions made was security: if consumers felt that your “network” was more secure, then they might be persuaded to choose it over alternatives. Maybe offering 2FA, for example.

71% of consumers would prefer a slower payment process with more rigorous security checks than a faster process with fewer checks.

[From The Paypers. Insights in payments.]

I wouldn’t. I couldn’t care less about card fraud as it’s not my problem. If some rapscallion books a weekend away with my card, it’s the airline’s problem (without 3D Secure) or the bank’s (with 3D Secure). Nevertheless, the idea of combining device and password to deliver a 2FA “something present” transaction is sound. It’s interesting to speculate, by the way, on what that device might be…

The watch can and should, for most of us, eliminate passcodes and passwords altogether on iPhones, and Macs and, if Apple’s smart, PCs: As long as my watch is in range, let me in!

[From The Apple iWatch | askTog]

The idea of competing for “first API” instead of “top of wallet” seems inevitable on current trends and I am very interested in what it means for the nature of competition. We’ve completed a detailed study of the API landscape for one of our financial services client last year, and I am well aware of the wide range of APIs that are out there, varying in functionality, “layer” and delivery (the quality of service and grade of service that sits behind the API itself).

While Braintree, Square et al work using card-on-file right now, in the not-too-distant future they will be using secure and functional APIs to obtain direct access to payment networks. You could see how in the UK, for example, these APIs would lead to retailers incentivising payment via Faster Payment Service (FPS) or ACH, perhaps direct-to-bill and other mechanisms suited to a particular purchases. So I buy all of Matt’s vision around this. And we already know that the retailers would prefer direct-to-bank solutions, which could point towards decoupled debit as the SP model of choice. The kind people at the Mobey Forum have invited me to give a keynote at their Mobey Day in Barcelona on 11th June, so I thought this might make a good subject for discussion and I’m putting together a few slides on “Apps, APIs and Authentication” to stimulate thought and debate.

If you want a case study, Africa (as in so many other payment-related initiatives) is a good place to look. Oltio (a joint venture between the MTN and Standard Bank in South Africa) has developed a mobile remote authentication payment product called payD, which allows a cardholder to authorise a debit transaction, using their bank PIN for authentication entered into their personal mobile phone. Well, you may say, “what’s so interesting about that?”. Phone plus PIN sounds pretty much like card plus PIN. And indeed it is, to consumers. But for a bank to allow consumers to enter their card PIN into a handset is a big deal, because mobile handsets are not approved PIN entry devices (PEDs) as far as Visa and MasterCard (and most other folks) are concerned. The fact that a bank has decided that the security infrastructure is good enough to allow customers to buy using conventional EMV cards plus offline PIN or using their phone app plus online (same) PIN is  big deal.

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Feeling excluded?

Greyscale backing image

 

 

[Margaret Ford] We’re often told that 70 is the new 60, 60 is the new 50 and so on.  In reality, the speed of technical change can have a real impact as we grow older. Take the proposed abolition of cheques – to the young it was a no-brainer. To some older people it was another sign of technology passing them by and making their lives harder not easier. In this case, the change was defeated (although for how long?) but in many areas technological change is causing significant problems for older people. It’s not all bleak though, as I was to discover at a recent round table event on older people and finance organised by the CSFI. 

The panel included Prof. Andrew Monk (University of York), Dr. Verina Waights (Open University),Rowena Crawford (IFS), Keith Gold and Mervyn Kohler (Age UK)*. The two central discussion points were ‘which products are most suitable for older people’ and ‘how we can make them most usable’. The discussions started with context setting, including the interaction between private and state income. In particular, the Department of Work and Pensions estimates that between 1.25m and 1.5m eligible pensioners do not claim pension credit. The public perception is often that pension planning is completed prior to retirement, from which point their situation will remain largely unchanged. 

However, potential future shocks such as the cost of long term social care and life events such as retirement, bereavement, late divorce and downsizing, all highlight the need to save even into later life. Declining interest rates for savers can dramatically cut incomes. In addition, people tend to underestimate their life expectancy (by 2 years if male, 4 years if female). Before retirement, financial planning is normally focused around accumulation, whereas beyond retirement decumulation can be a focus. An important decision is the extent to which wealth is to be used for spending or legacy. 

There is also no clarity over the definition of older people, which in the EU tends to mean people aged 55+. However, with the retirement age getting progressively higher, this may become less meaningful. In a research environment, older people may self-identify e.g. some people in their 90s may not feel that they belong to this category, while a grandmother in her 40s does. Nevertheless, a number of issues are relevant: individuals who may have relied on their partner to manage money throughout their lives together, suddenly find themselves bereaved and having to master a new and complex skill. Equally, the role of the Internet in offering the best deals on financial products risks disadvantaging non-users – while the stereotype of the ‘silver surfer’ is based in fact, not all older people are confident users of technology.  

As regards technology penetration, possession of a device does not imply successful access to the services available via that device. For example a study by the OU found that many smartphone users do not use their phones to access the Internet: 30% showed a high level of use, 30% would use it but not for purchases, 30-40% were not accessing the Internet in any meaningful way. Trust is a major factor in promoting engagement, as is personal affluence in influencing the purchase of technology. However, public access provision e.g. in libraries and Age UK centres is now widespread, so people on low incomes are not necessarily excluded. 

Most older people who do access the Internet do so via a laptop or PC, although Digital TV is seen as important in promoting digital inclusion and enabling people to benefit from ‘online-only’ deals.

Older people are more likely to opt out of e-banking and e-shopping, partly due to fears fuelled by media stories. Ease of use is also important, and technology updates can cause people to drop out. As regards usability, inclusive design aims to understand the ways in which people are excluded, resulting in solutions which can benefit the wider population. One example of this is audio books. 

In the older old (80+), many of whom were growing up during the war, there is an interesting approach to money, with many being very careful in their management. Record keeping (for instance in the form of cheque stubs) is a priority – in other words, for cheque users, the stubs are as important as the cheques. If technology is to be introduced to replace familiar forms of payment, usability is a key factor and that means including a means of record keeping. 

Another pressing issue, identified in a report written by Policis/Toynbee-Hall on behalf of the Payments Council in 2012, is the need to delegate payments. The use of a helper card has a clear role to play here, preferably with safeguards to ensure that the person using the helper card has only limited and time-specific access to the account owner’s funds. Payments systems, which aim to be universal, must take into account the natural impairments of ageing, particularly affecting vision, hearing and dexterity.  Dementia is also very prevalent, with implications for all aspects of life, including finance. 

The practical, human processes around card and online technology are not yet sufficiently robust. Issues with PINs tend to result in accounts being frozen, requiring the account holder to attend the branch with identity documents. In many cases the account holder is not mobile enough to be able to attend the branch easily and if they are, they may no longer have the necessary document (passport, driver’s licence). Independence and safety are the key areas of focus for delivering effective services in this area. It was proposed that cards and PINs are fundamentally problematic and that identity lies at the heart of the problem. A biometric solution might help, perhaps voice via a simple appliance like an iPad. Equally, a fingerprint-based PIN reminder has been developed in collaboration with older people and found to be very popular. 

Proposals for ways in which the industry can provide for the needs of older people included investigating the role of the Post Office as a trusted partner and identifying ways in which other organisations, perhaps Saga or Co-op, can play a similar role. The need for advice and the complexities of paying for that advice were highlighted. The Care and Support Bill currently going through parliament will require a new kind of adviser, with a wider range of skills than many existing financial advisers. The Society for Later Life Advisers may have a role to play here. 

At the lower end of the income scale people tend to receive a very poor service, especially regarding investment. Intelligent systems could help to direct people towards appropriate advice. These systems would need to be created by people who understand the issues, with services delivered more widely through the use of automation. The immense issues facing people on low incomes, whatever their age, were highlighted. In particular the introduction of Universal Credit is likely to result in many claimants requiring significant levels of support. The first priorities must be the provision of benefits and tax advice, since paid advice may not be a realistic option.

All in all, the discussions generated a high level of interest and the group agreed that the subject will be revisited on an ongoing basis. One resulting priority is to gather the relevant data, to provide a firm basis for future discussions.

 

* Andrew Monk is Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of York. His main interest is how to ensure the continued independence of older people in an increasingly technological world.

Verina Waights is a lecturer in Professional Health Care Education at the Open University, with an interest in the discrimination people with long-term conditions often face due to their advanced age.

Rowena Crawford is a senior research economist in the pensions and public finance sector at the Institute of Fiscal Studies. Her focus is on pensions and saving for retirement.

Keith Gold spent over 30 years with IBM, focussing on the application of technology in the financial services industry. He is a self-declared ‘tech-savvy wrinkly’.

Mervyn Kohler is Special Adviser at Age UK, having been Head of Public Affairs at Help the Aged (before it merged with Age Concern). He also serves on the Social Protection Expert Group of Age Platform Europe. 

 

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 

Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Mad man, for a day

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] As part of Advertising Week Europe, I was invited by Weve (the UK mobile commerce joint venture between EE, O2 and Vodafone) to come along and take part in the festivities at BAFTA. Tony Moretta from Weve asked me if I would, in a Jesuit tradition of being able to stand in your opponent’s shoes, argue that NFC has no future. Tony knows that I don’t actually believe that, but he wanted someone well-versed in all of the pros and cons to step up to the plate as a “hard but fair” debate opponent in front of the assembled hordes of people in designer spectacles.

Untitled

It turned out to be a fun day. In the morning I went along to the breakfast, sponsored by Weve, with David Sear (the new CEO of Weve), Olaf Swantee (the CEO of EE), Ronan Dunne (the CEO of Telefonica O2) and Guy Laurence (the CEO of Vodafone UK). Over the muesli and herbal tea I listened to a very enjoyable (and educational) conversation about how the CEOs saw the company evolving and what its propositions would be. They spent a lot of the time talking about advertising and location-based SMS targeting and such like. They did mention payments a couple of times, but as David pointed out the whole payments thing seems a bit complicated so they’re not focusing on it for the time being. The one comment that did make my ears prick up was when someone from the floor added the elephant to the room by asking how the UK MNO joint venture would deal with competition from the OTTs (ie, Facebook, Google etc). Guy made a very interesting and strategic point: he said that the key thing that Weve had that the OTTs didn’t was authenticated identities with billing relationships.

NYC Montage

When it came to the debate I decided on a two-pronged attack, so I stood up and (using the montage of a New York coffee shop above as my backdrop) argued that NFC has no future because

  1. It doesn’t work. I rather ungenerously used the example of Transport for London’s landmark implementation of contactless technology. You can ride a London bus using an NFC phone. Or at least you would be able to if you could go to any of the mobile operators that are part of Weve and buy an NFC-capable handset with an active Visa, MasterCard or Amex payment application on it that will work on a London bus. Which, at the time of writing this piece, you can’t. Despite the fact that the first (very successful) pilot of phone use for Visa payment and Oyster transit was six years ago. So why no progress? Because it is so complicated and so expensive to implement that no-one is bothering.
  2. Even if it did work, it’s irrelevant. This is because the mobile revolution in retail isn’t about getting rid of cards, it’s about getting rid of POS. Look at the montage. That corner coffee shop in New York accepts more methods of payment than you can shake a stick at (and almost all of them have nothing to do with cards). They have an iPad and when they press the “pay” button I couldn’t even tell you how many choices come up. The picture shows me using PayPal, but I could have paid with LevelUp. Either way, I paid using my phone without a proximity interface. So, I argued, even if you lot (ie, the mobile operators) ever do get your act together and put out a working mobile wallet with an NFC interface, it will never be used.

I thought that my terrific one-two would lay Tony out flat, but he ducked and weaved with some fancy footwork around the fact that NFC is simply more convenient than pfaffing about with apps, and in the end that’s what counts. I thought he might go below the belt and say that I was focusing on payments and that advertising people can have fun with NFC without sorting out the secure element (SE) issues that none of us went into in front of the mad men (and women). I suspect he may well be wrong about this, since I’ve written before about the need for security even in simple tagging applications, but he had a good point. NFC has come to mean “EMV over an NFC interface via SWP access to an SE” in industry parlance whereas it is simultaneously much more, and much less, than that.

Tony and I didn’t get in to this in detail in the debate, but Weve’s shift away from payments makes a lot of sense. If the industry focuses on payments only, there are problems. Look at the numbers. In 2008, Frost & Sullivan said that NFC would be “widely popular” by 2015. Juniper in 2011 put the global NFC mobile payments market at $50 billion by 2014. A115 said mobile payments in Europe could reach €250 billion by 2014. In 2010, Frost & Sullivan quantified and said that they expected the total payment value for NFC globally to reach €111 billion in 2015, with €42 billion of that in the EU. They are now projecting that almost half of all mobile payments in Europe will be NFC by 2015 (while TSM revenues would reach €330m) and that by 2018, more than a third of the phones in Europe will ship with NFC. Last year, Gartner estimated the global mobile payment market at $670 billion in 2016, with the market 80-90% non-NFC (that’s still €100 billion+ NFC). Now

Forrester forecasts that US mobile payments will reach $90B in 2017, a 48% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) from the $12.8B spent in 2012.

[From US Mobile Payments To Reach $90B By 2017 – Forbes]

They also forecast that nearly half of this will be mobile proximity ($41 billion). So is that a market to start chasing? Tough question. In the UK, there is only one NFC proximity payments handset on sale (the Orange/Barclaycard QuickTap) and virtually no transactions. In the US, where ISIS is getting off the ground, the market is nascent. The volume is taking a lot longer to arrive than was originally thought. Yet, as observer after observer is saying, there is little point in chasing it if the fees are the goals. The value of payment data is far greater than payment fees, which are in any case trending asymptotically to zero. This is, of course, where people like Weve can make a new business. Payments (NFC or otherwise) are a necessary but not a sufficient component of a successful wallet infrastructure. Can Weve deliver that component? I go back to David Evans’ characteristically accurate summary of the situation, which is surely correct.

The source of my skepticism is—I think that the likely role of the carriers in payments is basically being a pipe. It’s not clear that they really have any relevant skills needed for running mobile payments, and I think that it’s more likely that they’re going to turn out to be a very important source of pipes for other people developing mobile payments alternatives.

[From The Future of Mobile Payments]

What the carriers should be doing is coming together to provide common wallet infrastructure, not the wallet itself. (And one of the most important elements of that infrastructure, per Guy’s comment at breakfast, is token-based identity management and two-factor authentication.) Hence my response to the last question in the debate session. I don’t see me walking into to Waitrose and paying with a “Weve wallet” in five year’s time, but I can see me paying with my “Waitrose app powered by Weve”, which is why I am enthusiastic about it.

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Art for crime’s sake

Greyscale backing image
[Jane Adams] Delegates often say that one of the most valuable things about the Tomorrow’s Transactions (or as previously known Digital Money) Forums is how they spark the imagination. A key part of this over the past few years has been the Future of Money Design Award competitions, organised by Austin Holdworth in association with Consult Hyperion. Austin is a visiting tutor and researcher within the Design Interactions Department at the Royal College of Art. He is the curator of the ‘Future of Money Design Awards’ sponsored by ACI Worldwide & Consult Hyperion.

“When bankers get together they talk about art. When artists get together, they talk about money.”

[Oscar Wilde]

The theme for the competition at Tomorrow’s Transactions Forum 2013 was Future Financial Crime. Entrants were asked to imagine a financial crime, based on future technology.

Three entries were shortlisted, based on written submissions and we asked the shortlistees, with only a week’s notice, to produce a video presentation about their imagined crime, to present at Tomorrow’s Transactions.

The three shortlisted entries were:

Tommy-Knockers by  science writer Frank Swain

This entry imagined a not too distant future in which the 19th century ‘tommy’ or ‘truck’ system had been reintroduced. Inspired perhaps by Iain Duncan Smith’s suggestion that benefit recipients should be limited, by their benefit cards, as to what they could spend their benefits on, the entry extended this to workers too. Paid on stored value cards, workers were able to only spend their wages in company stores on a limited range of products at vastly inflated prices. In the 19th century, this sometimes led to workers effectively paying to have a job. Similar systems were only recently in use in certain Russian industrial single employer cities. The crime lay in people working out how to hack the systems to allow themselves to spend their wages as they chose, but there was a clear ambiguity in the presentation as to whether the crime lay with the hackers or with the system itself.

Synedoche, Hills by Ilona Gaynor

This entry imagined a world in which Second Life was used to launder money, through the purchase of virtual art, property and other high value virtual objects in a virtual city run by fraudsters. In common with all the short listed entries, this appeared clearly feasible, given the convertibility of the Linden Dollar, used as the currency in Second Life (currently convertible at between 310 – 320 to the £).  

Bigshot by Joe Carpita and Craig Stover

The third shortlisted entry took the premise of the Kickstarter crowdfunding platform and using anonymising technologies such as Tor, extended it to a platform for funding organised crime called Bigshot. It appeared to be strongly influenced by Timothy C. May’s seminal 1988 work “The Crypto-Anarchists’ Manifesto”.

Delegates watched each video presentation, with the creatives providing a piquant contrast to the besuited delegates – Frank with his Mohawk hairdo, Ilona with her astonishingly funky glasses and Craig and Joe by their refusal to show up, an ostensibly nihilist position made excusable by the fact they were in Chicago (they linked in by Skype) and we were in London.

Then a panel of judges from the event sponsors ACI, Visa and WorldPay and from Consult Hyperion decided on the winner – Bigshot. The choice was extremely difficult – all the entries were feasible, imaginative and beautifully done. However the technical elegance and very high quality of the video from Craig and Joe stood out and they were declared the winners. Judge Gill Greenwood from ACI Worldwide explained, “The reason we chose Joe and Craig’s submission were:

  1. It was felt to be more genuinely futuristic than the other two, which to some extent exist today
  2. Crowd sourcing/funding and discussions around anonymity and privacy were felt to be important unresolved issues today and so the threats posed by a site such as Big Shot were felt to be potentially real and huge! 
  3. The presentation was really good – communication was effective, and the execution was both creative and professional.”

Austin said, “Although this year’s competition ‘Designing A Future Financial Crime’ isn’t the usual theme for an art challenge – that ought to promote a nice corporate image, it did generate some intriguing concepts.  The artist’s shameless representation of our ugly nature hopefully provoked, challenged and entertained the audience at TT.  It perhaps showed the only difference between a great creative mind and criminal one is… errrmm… money.  Although the downside of the high quality of this year’s work means that next year’s competition will be a greater challenge… any ideas people?”

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Who’s calling?

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] An interesting e-mail arrived today (the contents and counterparties are not relevant to this post) but it made me think about “real names” again. I have to get together a talk for developers at the Microsoft Digital Wallet Foundry, and I thought this might be a good topic. So I went back to my notes to see if I could find a fun “case study” to focus thinking around convenience and security in ID. I came across this.

As Sheryl Sandberg said this week, when caller ID first came out, it was declared a violation of privacy.

[From Fear For Your Safety, Not Your Privacy | TechCrunch]

That’s because caller ID is a violation of privacy. Which is why you can turn it off. If I’m phoning British Gas customer service, I can leave caller ID on and benefit from the efficiency that having my Calling Line Identifier (CLI) connect to their CRM brings. But if I’m phoning the council to complain about the crack house next door, then I might decide to remain anonymous and turn it off. If I want to avoid the near-contininous stream of calls from ambulance-chasing lawyers about PPI, I might want to screen incoming calls by CLI (although this is a useless strategy against spammers because they use international “out of area” codes). Bear in mind, too, that spoofing caller ID is trivial, so it doesn’t deliver any actual security. If it wasn’t trivial to spoof it, there would be no need for legislation such as

The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, which was signed into law Dec. 22, 2010, prohibits caller ID spoofing for the purposes of defrauding or otherwise causing harm.

[From Caller ID and Spoofing | FCC.gov]

Thanks goodness there’s a law against such spoofing, because it means that no-one does it. No, wait… that’s not really true. No one does it except for criminals who are, for example, spoofing bank numbers to make phishing attacks or in more sinister enterprises such as getting people raided by SWAT teams by making bogus emergency calls that appear to come from the victim’s address (“SWATting”). So I call the police using your home phone number in the caller ID and tell them that someone has gone postal in the house, at which point heavily armed law enforcement officials storm your house and (hopefully, from my point of view, shoot you). This just happened to the well-know blogger Brian Krebs.

His office phone rang while he was vacuuming, but he ignored it. That, it turns out, was an unfortunate choice, given that the call came from law enforcement who were trying to verify what would turn out to be a spoofed emergency call showing Krebs’s number on caller ID.

[From Hackers launch DDoS attack on security blogger’s site, send SWAT team to his home | Naked SecurityNaked Security]

In other words, CLI is about convenience. It doesn’t deliver security. Worse still, it delivers “anti-security” because people believe it delivers security when it doesn’t. CLI did develop an acceptable privacy settlement – since you can turn it off – and people started to use it despite the lack of security. I can’t be bothered to look, but I’m sure page 697 of my phone company terms and conditions says that I’m not allowed to spoof CLI.

“The name you use should be your real name as it would be listed on your credit card,” Facebook says.

[From Facebook’s fake-name fight grows as users skirt the rules | The Verge]

Why? It’s of no help to anyone: anyone except marketers who are being sold the data, that is. My friends know that Leadbelly Gutbucket is me, and so they friend me and we use and enjoy Facebook together (as I do, in fact). But the corporations don’t know that this is me, unless I choose to tell them. I don’t believe that any name I see on Facebook is real. How would Facebook know? They didn’t do an Experian check on me when I created my account.

“Pretending to be anything or anyone is not allowed.”

[From Facebook’s fake-name fight grows as users skirt the rules | The Verge]

This is a completely different point. And Facebook are completely right about this: you shouldn’t be able pretend to be anyone else. Personation is obviously wrong. For example, did you see the Italian “Catch me if you can” story? It is a super tale of fake identity updated for the modern age.

A man who posed as an airline pilot and traveled in the cockpit of at least one plane was arrested in Turin Airport using forged identity cards and wearing a pilot’s uniform… The 32-year-old, whose real name was not released, allegedly created a fake identity as a Lufthansa pilot named “Andrea Sirlo,” complete with a Facebook page that included fake flight attendant friends… The national military police tracked down the suspect from photos on his Facebook profile, in which he is shown posing in uniform and sunglasses in front of airplanes.

[From Fake Italian pilot traveled in cockpit, police say | Reuters]

But if I create a Facebook account in the name of David Beckham and then IM a transfer request demanding a move to Swindon Town, is that really impersonation or just a joke? One more point. The real names fuss is not a Facebook phenomenon and I don’t mean to suggest it is. If you want a non-Facebook example you need look no further than our own legislature.

an embarrassing photograph emerged which showed him wearing the name-tag ‘Michael Green’ – an alter ego used by the MP when posing as a self-help guru – at an internet conference in the US in 2004.

[From Maybe it’s because I’m a Watforder: ‘Double life’ Tory chief can’t decide if he was born in London or Herts | Mail Online]

I’m not sure I’m against alter egos. What is the problem with having a “pen name” for the novel that you are writing? And how you can you “pose” as a self-help guru. Surely he was just practicing what he preaches. If I say that I’m a self-help guru, then I am. Now, you may want to see some credentials or learn about my reputation as a self-help guru, but in a world where you do not need my name as an (imperfect) proxy to those details, what does the name matter?

There are many points to be made from these stories, but the main ones I want to make are that the whole identity thing is more complicated than it seems and it needs new thinking and a new narrative and that reputations are more important than names and finding a way to securely manage credentials and reputation is the way forward for the new economy. To my mind, these are critical components of the new digital wallet, because virtual none of your day-to-day transactions depend on your name.

In the end, I decided it would be too boring to tread too much of the same pseudonymity ground as I did my last TEDx talk (which now has almost 173,000 views, I’m rather excited to report!) so I’ve gone for a more sweeping topic: “Identity is the New Money”. Look forward to seeing you at the Modern Jago in May!.

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Retail banking technology update

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] I was asked to chair Intellect’s now-annual Technology in Retail Banking Update, this time featuring analysts Kieran Hines from Datamonitor and Daniel Mayo from Ovum. As the chair of Intellect’s Payments Group, I was naturally most interested in their observations on payments, but both of them gave much wider and more comprehensive overviews to the assembled vendors.

On the customer facing side of things, Kieran identified individualism, digital lifestyles, convenience, fear, trust and exclusivity and some of the main drivers. Amongst other observations, he said that (and this is my paraphrasing, not quotations) that:

  1. Customer interfaces will see an improvement as banks try to improve their services to retail customers. Somewhat surprisingly, to me, this means increased spending on call centres at the expense of online channels. The top three areas by expenditure will be mobile wallets, marketing and online channels, but the growth in online channel spending will slow. One of the key reasons for spending on customer interfaces is to improve the cross-selling of products (hence a substantial fraction of the expenditure will be on digital marketing).
  2. Mobile payment strategies are becoming mobile wallet strategies. New retail models need new payment options (such as APIs into retailer solutions, for example). Kieran had some survey figures from around Europe showing that a quarter of all consumers use mobile commerce at least once per month already in UK, Italy and Spain. Similarly for a fifth of consumers in Germany and a sixth in France;
  3. The consumer view of mobile payments seems stable. Still around half of mobile users want to use their phones to pay for things. Kieran did, however, paint a rather negative picture of mobile proximity. He said that he gave mobile NFC payments a less than 1% chance of succeeding, which I think is a little on the slow side, because the convenience technology of NFC will be adopted for payment mechanisms beyond conventional secure element-based EMV (of course, I was not able to say this at the time).

It’s interesting, to build on that last point, to look at how people pay with their phones now. If you exclude retail POS as statistically insignificant (!), then they are still overwhelmingly using card-not-present solutions. A February 2013 survey of the UK digital channel (mobile and internet) found that the majority of

  • 54% card-on-file.
  • 19% PayPal.
  • 17% 3D Secure.
  • 2% virtual currency (e.g., Facebook credits, Bitcoin).

That whole card-on-file segment should (as PayPal are doing) be subsumed into API-based wallet interfaces. Datamonitor’s study showed that some 7.5% of UK mobile users already have a mobile wallet of one form or another but less than half that number actually use it. And, more worryingly, even the people who do use them aren’t that crazy about them, with only a quarter of the users say that they “liked it and found it helpful”. My conclusion: API-based hyper-wallets are the path through the roadmap, not card-on-file based mobile wallets. I hope to have the opportunity to test this idea out today at the Tomorrow’s Transactions Forum where I’ve assembled a panel of people who have experience building payment businesses that were go enough to be sold — Jane Zavashalina from Yandex Money, Greg Wolfond from SecureKey, Anil Aggarawal from Google and Tony Moretta from We’ve — to hear their views on what might make for a successful for wallet business.

But back to Intellect. I thought it was significant that Kieran used Simple and Moven to illustrate his points about mobile giving customers access to their own data in more useful ways. He referred to this as “small data”, a phrase that has stuck with me, and I’ll get back to it later on.

Daniel didn’t focus as much on payments. He talked about overall IT investment priorities in retail banking for the coming year. He said that the main priorities would be around sustainability, security, identity and privacy. In payments, Daniel highlighted mobile contactless, mobile wallet and prepaid as still attracting spend. This seemed to me to be an interesting combination, but I wonder if I’m reading too much into the coincidence of the three since I suspect the mobile wallet investment is decoupled (pun intended) from the mobile proximity and prepaid investment. He also said he thought card-based contactless spending would fall as their is low interest from issuers because they see little business case. I liked the way he distinguished between areas attracting interest (e.g., big data, analytics and cloud) from areas attracting investment around what he called “IT-enabled innovation”. Daniel also talked about the substantial investments going to risk management, payment processing and collections and made some thoughtful observations about the reasons for this.

My favourite stat from Daniel all morning? I was even more astonished to learn from him that a quarter of UK retail banks will be investing money in cheques over the next year to 18 months than I was to learn about the renewed investment in call centres. Cheques! What next? Horseless carriages?

One of the questions that came up during the discussion session that followed their presentations was about security. The discussion brought some input from the floor to the effect that studies seem to show that not only do customers not care about security, they will actively switch to service with less security if it is more convenient or cheaper despite telling researchers that they value security and think that security is important.  Another reason not to listen to consumers, as I blogged about yesterday. Kieran had shown some survey results indicating that around half of consumers in the UK are not confident about the security of mobile wallets, but I was left wondering about how much that matters in the great scheme of things?

The point that I wanted to take out of the discussion might be summarised as “Big Data vs. Small Data”. Daniel talked about banks wanting to do more with their Big Data whereas Kieran mentioned banks giving the customers the ability to do more with their personal data, which as I mentioned he labelled “Small Data”, and I found both of these very interesting. This view of co-evolving bank-side “big data” and consumer-side “small data” strategies struck me as a realistic framework for planning and I’ll certainly be feeding it in to some of our client work.

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Don’t listen to the public

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] I had an interesting afternoon working with a client on some mobile wallet-related propositions, which are the focus for quite a few people in this business right now. It wouldn’t be appropriate to comment on the specifics of the propositions, of course, but I’m sure it will be OK to make a general point. These propositions should be more radical, and asking the public what they want from mobile wallets is a waste of time.

Smartphone penetration in the UK may be 60% and rising but 2013 is unlikely to be the year of the mobile wallet, according to ICM Research.
A survey of 2015 Brits shows that a third would definitely or probably use their mobile as a wallet to make payments, collect vouchers, to use as event tickets and on public transport.

[From Finextra: 2013 unlikely to be UK’s year of the mobile wallet – ICM]

Oh well, only a third. Perhaps it’s something to do with security. Polls that say that mobile wallets are not going to catch on often cite consumer concerns about security as one of the main reasons for that. 

A survey has found that French consumers are more interested in the idea of using their fingerprint to identify themselves when making a payment than in using a mobile phone for the purpose.

[From French consumers prefer fingerprints to NFC • NFC World]

Well, mass-market biometrics are on course for mobile phones this year anyway and I am sure they will improve the perception of phone security whether they have any impact on the actual levels of security or not. But let’s go back to the survey.

A survey of 2015 Brits shows that a third [overall – it’s half for smartphone users] would definitely or probably use their mobile as a wallet to make payments, collect vouchers, to use as event tickets and on public transport.

[From Finextra: 2013 unlikely to be UK’s year of the mobile wallet – ICM]

Now, to be fair, I don’t really pay any attention to what the public say about anything, but I am curious as to why a story that says that half of all smartphone users would use their phones for payments, ticketing and loyalty then headlines the mobile wallet as “unlikely”? Perhaps it is because the public don’t really know what a mobile wallet is or what it might do (other than act as an expensive an inconvenient replica of the wallets they already have).

This was a point that I made when I was invited by Total Payments (my favourite people right now because they said I was the most influential emerging payments expert in Europe – thanks guys) to give a “pecha kucha” talk. A pecha kucha is a presentation format of 20 slides that are displayed for 20 seconds each, which gives you 400 seconds (six minutes and 40 seconds) to make a point. I can’t say I was entirely successful (I ended up skipping a couple of slides) and I can’t say it’s really the format for me, because I like to engage with people and explore issues so that I learn too, but it was fun. You can judge whether it was effective or not for yourself here.

So irrespective of what people say, I am sure that they will be using mobile wallets, with two provisos: one is that we make mobile wallets hyper-wallets rather than virtual wallets, as I’ve written before, and the other is that we do deal with that security issue. And that, I think, might be relatively easy.

Your credit card is a data string, not a physical piece of plastic: why not enclose that data—and the privileges and responsibilities it unlocks—in a remotely accessible mobile container with an extensive system of checks and balances that has a much healthier respect for that data?

[From How A Stolen Wallet Made Me A Mobile-Payments Enthusiast | paidContent]

That isn’t to say that security isn’t a huge problem. It is, but for a different reason, which is the cost and complexity of the infrastructure that it demands. The Atlanta Fed highlighted this (as did a great many other people).

While, as noted in our 2011 mobile industry position paper, firms engaged in rolling out new mobile payments services have agreed that successful near-term adoption will rely on common standards for security and interoperability, free market dynamics dictate that all players in this new mobile ecosystem will not necessarily work together, motivated instead by a responsibility to create shareholder value

[From Portals and Rails]

This is why if you are, say, Visa and Citi and Vodafone, then there is a long and complex path to a wallet and handset and SIM and secure element combination that can deliver security appropriate to mass-market, population-scale payments. The combination of security and interoperability that the industry chose was the EMV, Secure Element (SE), Single Wire Protocol (SWP) and SIM-based model.  Sorry to sound like a broken record, but security is a problem partly because of that chosen model, not because of mobile payments in general. As we have long maintained, mobile payments will be more secure than card payments. As Cindy Merrit from the Atlanta Fed said succinctly:

the mobile phone will be a much more secure payment device than the plastic cards we use today

[From Portals and Rails]

I agree wholeheartedly. Consult Hyperion’s position has always been that the future “something present” transaction (SP) will more secure than either card present (CP) or card-not-present (CNP) transactions are now, and that translates to a cost differential.

In fact the bottom line is that the fraud figures have been improving, and I expect them to improve further still over the next couple of years as we begin the integration of cards and mobiles.

[From Digital Money: The fraud trajectory]

Now, the general public have never heard of SEs or Supplementary Security Domains (SSDs) or Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) and wouldn’t understand what they are even if you told them. So if we can find a way to overcome the security infrastructure problem, then it’s not going to overcome the security problem for consumers.

The results of a survey released today reveals that people would prefer to lose the contents of their wallets than their mobile phones. The study asked what people would most fear losing from their back pocket – 37% said their ‘personal phone’; 20% their ‘company phone’; 25% said ‘£50’; with just 18% citing ‘credit cards’.

[From New Media Knowledge – Survey finds people stress more about losing their phone than their wallet]

Surely it’s also about people understanding their rights under relevant national laws? The reason I couldn’t care less about losing a credit card is that it’s not my problem. I ring up the bank and they send me another one. I doesn’t cost me anything and while I’m waiting for it come, I just use another one instead. If I lose my phone, it’s a pain in the arse for a couple of days until the replacement shows up and I have to pay for the lost-or-stolen insurance if I don’t want to have to buy another phone. Hence my suggestion yesterday for where it might be fruitful to focus on building a strong wallet proposition: the lost-and-stolen issue. If the industry can turn this from being a concern into being a selling point, we are definitely on to something.

Hence: maybe the USP of the hyper-wallet is recovery. If I lose my wallet, it takes days, weeks or perhaps even months to reconstitute. If I lose my hyper-wallet, I go to the phone shop and get another phone, turn it on, enter my PIN / fingerprint / voiceprint and ID and hey presto five minutes later my Visa card, my Starbucks app and my Safeway loyalty card are all up and running again. This is the “Marks & Spencer” theory. If we make consumer absolutely confident that when something goes wrong they will be taken care of, then they won’t focus on the things that could go wrong, if you see what I mean.

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

NFC aftershocks

Greyscale backing image

[Dave Birch] There's been considerable interest in our post last week drawing attention to the first public announcement of using NFC in a mobile handset for EMV transactions that do not need a Secure Element (SE) and, naturally, some people have been asking us how it works. Before I return to the specific case of Bankinter, let me just make a general point about what is going on here.

As I mentioned to a couple of the people who e-mailed me, we have been working on non-SE EMV over NFC for more than two years now, so we know rather a lot about this at Consult Hyperion. In fact, we know everything about it, so I thought I'd follow up with a slightly more detailed description of the general class of solution. To understand how this class works, you have to understand how EMV works (not what it does, but how it works). In particular, you need to understand something about the keys and certificates that EMV uses to implement the cryptography required for secure transactions. If you are interested in understanding how EMV uses cryptographic keys and certificates to deliver secure transactions, the good people at Cryptomathic have a nice PDF that you can download.

Entitled “EMV Key Management – Explained,” the Cryptomathic white paper provides an overview of the cryptographic processes involved when issuing and managing payment card and mobile applications based on EMV chip card technology.

[From ContactlessNews | Cryptomathic publishes white paper, 'EMV Key Management – Explained']

To greatly simplify, your EMV card contains a cryptographic key that is valid until the expiry date of the card. If the bad guys could get hold of this key (they can't, because it is in the tamper-resistant chip on the card and is never given up) then they could make a clone of your card and go off on a spending spree. So how can an app use EMV without using a key stored in a tamper-resistant chip without risking card cloning? Well, what an app could do is go online to the bank and get a temporary key that it can use but that will not compromise security if it is somehow obtained by criminals. This temporary key could then be used to secure valid EMV transactions through the NFC interface. If the bad guys steal your phone and guess your password and figure out how to decrypt the temporary key from the app, then they are left with a key that is valid for, let's say, one transaction or a couple of transactions or whatever the banks decide to set it (so long as you haven't noticed the phone is missing and reported it stolen). Such an app doesn't use the handset manufacturer's SE or the mobile operator's SE or indeed an attached SE. It's just an app that uses NFC, but that uses NFC to make secure transactions that are interoperable with the installed terminal estate. This ail radically reduces the cost of development, deployment and use, as it's goodbye to the Trusted Service Manager (TSM) and the operator's "apartment model" of renting SIM space.

I should be clear that I am not describing in the paragraph above any specific implementation that any of our clients may or not be exploring. Here I will merely say that there are a variety of different possible implementations of this general schema, depending on how the "card" issuer wants the system to work. So, for example, there is a big difference between online EMV and offline EMV and you may choose different strategies depending on whether you want the app to go online at POS or not, that sort of thing.

So, with that background established, back to the story that I called an "NFC Earthquake".

Spanish banking group Bankinter has developed an NFC payments solution that works without a secure element, potentially cutting out both mobile network operators and over-the-top players like Google from the NFC payments business.

[From Bankinter develops NFC payments service that eliminates need for secure elements • NFC World]

Mr. Alberto Perez Lafuente from Bankinter was kind enough to give me some of his time this week so that I could ask him a few questions on behalf of blog readers. To summarise: they have chosen an online-only payment solution able to handle EMV mobile payments performed with one-time-use payment cards. Each single-use card (valid for one minute) is generated at the mobile app when the user inserts personal / transaction data, and the user then has up to 60 seconds to tap the mobile to the merchant contactless POS for payment.. This makes complete sense in the Spanish market where all POS terminals go online (as they do in, for example, the US). Alberto also told me that they are looking at a solution for transit by implementing DESFire using a similar strategy.

One thing that I thought also worth noting was that Bankinter owns an MVNO, so even in the case where the bank controls its own SIM-based SE it is transparently clear that the costs and complexity of the implementation are excessive. This strikes me as a definite signal to the industry to rethink current models and look for simpler solutions. Alberto told me that he thinks Bankinter's accouncement

will reshape the negotiations between banks, MNOs and handset manufacturers.

I have to say, he's absolutely right, which is why I think it was reasonable to describe the announcement as an earthquake in my post last week. I've no more idea than anyone else how this will all pan out, but I do think it's already clear that the future mass market use of NFC for payments will not be confined to GSMA SIM-based SE model even for EMV.

Finally: before I get any more e-mails telling me that you can't access the NFC interface on, say, a Samsung S3 without going through the SE: yes, I know. If you want to do this now you need a mod, but it's worth playing around with because I agree with Cherian Abraham's excellent analysis that Google will open up the interface in the future. The time to begin experimenting with the non-SE future is now…

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Subscribe to our newsletter

You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

By accepting the Terms, you consent to Consult Hyperion communicating with you regarding our events, reports and services through our regular newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime through our newsletters or by emailing us.