Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada The Almighty Buck News

Canadian Banks Rushing To Offer Virtual Wallets 164

Posted by Soulskill
from the new-ways-to-sell-customers dept.
silentbrad writes with this quote from the Globe and Mail:"Canada's big banks are preparing to launch 'virtual wallets' as early as this fall that will allow consumers to digitally consolidate their credit and debit cards from any financial institution, and use them to make purchases online and through their cellphones at cash registers. It is being called the biggest change to the way consumers pay for goods in Canada in decades, and for the banks moving quickly into this space, the strategy is about keeping ownership of the vast and potentially lucrative stores of data that are involved in transactions. ... The majority of the banking sector is expected to follow suit in the next year or so, with each financial institution relying on the concept of 'aliases,' where a password lets consumers access their payment cards, but protects personal information from being passed to the merchant. ... Retailers can use the information contained in transactions, stripped of details that violate privacy laws, to tailor offerings or promotions to consumers. And the banks figure they can build a new business from that new world. Location data on phones can help neighborhood stores connect with customers in the area, while transaction data online can give insight into consumer habits and tastes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Banks Rushing To Offer Virtual Wallets

Comments Filter:
  • by paiute (550198) on Friday July 13, 2012 @11:05AM (#40639119)
    This is great news. Now I no longer have to wait to lose my physical wallet to go through the agony of canceling and replacing credit cards. It can be lost more efficiently in the cloud.
    • You beat me to it...

    • by IpSo_ (21711) on Friday July 13, 2012 @11:10AM (#40639165) Homepage Journal

      If anything this should be more secure than the RFID credit cards already in everyones wallet up here. The phone shouldn't be transmitting any data until the app is opened and a password is entered. Sure someone could be intercepting the transmission at the checkout of the store, but that risk already exists with existing RFID cards and also with merchants not locking down their POS terminals and subjecting themselves to having them replaced with compromised ones.

      • There are RFIDs in credit cards? Really? Have you got more information on that?
        • by gstoddart (321705)

          Don't know if they're RFID or not, but credit cards which don't require being swiped to make payments are pretty widespread.

          Some of them you just put up near a receiver and it will process a transaction.

          • They have been around for quite awhile. Over three years ago my bank at the time sent me a new card with a RFID chip with no explanation other than a marketing letter promoting it as "new & improved".

            Bull. I checked and it turns out that my card was one of the ones compromised during the Heartland Payment Systems breach that was announced during the Obama inauguration. ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10146275-83.html [cnet.com] )

            They didn't bother notifying me for 6 months. I cancelled the card AND the bank for

            • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Note to TSA: I am not a terrorist even though I used the words "kill" and "nuking".

              Thanks, now if only we could get everyone to just admit when they are and aren't, that would make our jobs a LOT easier. Keep up the good work, patriot!

        • You haven't seen any credit cards with the little smartcard chip in it? If you've had any cards replaced in the last few years (at least in north america), then it's guaranteed that you'd have a smartcard chip.

        • by swillden (191260)

          There are RFIDs in credit cards? Really? Have you got more information on that?

          Technically, they're contactless smart cards, not RFIDs (different standards, different frequencies, different RF characteristics that create different range, etc., characteristics, different capabilities, including the ability to use cryptographic security, and different physical security characteristics), but yes. They use the same fundamental technology and protocols as Google Wallet and the other upcoming phone-based wallets. Well, more precisely, the phone-based NFC technology is based on the contact

      • shouldn't be transmitting any data until the app is opened and a password is entered

        "Shouldn't". Now there is a weasel word that in this context, has packed in a whole lot of weasel. Might even be fair to call it a wolverine [wikipedia.org] word.

    • by Daas (620469)

      The main difference is : I can't remotely kill my wallet if I lose it or if it gets stolen. Plus, there is no password on my wallet.

      • by paiute (550198)

        The main difference is : I can't remotely kill my wallet if I lose it or if it gets stolen. Plus, there is no password on my wallet.

        I thought the main difference was that I can keep my actual hand on my actual wallet and know it is safe. How many Russian mobsters are going to have access to my virtual wallet before I even know it is compromised?

        • by IpSo_ (21711) on Friday July 13, 2012 @11:38AM (#40639443) Homepage Journal

          Does it matter if its compromised by one person or 10,000? The one person who steals your wallet from your car or off the beach when you're not looking can just as easily provide the information to anyone else anyways.

          Lets compare the process in each scenario:

          Physical Wallet:
          1. Thief steals wallet from car.
          2. Thief opens wallet, takes credit cards and starts making purchases at physical stores and online.

          Virtual Wallet in Phone:
          1. Thief steals phone from car.
          2. Thief must prevent any radio signal from reaching the phone to prevent a remote wipe.
          3. Thief takes the phone home and starts the "hacking" process to gain access first to the phone (password lock)
          4. Thief then must gain access to the presumably encrypted virtual wallet app.

          If the encryption is done properly, step 4 would be prohibitively expensive and easily buy the 2-24hours it would take to realize your phone is gone and contact your credit card company.

          Not only that, but once enough people are using the virtual wallet, I would imagine they would be able to easily switch to using bluetooth or similar protocol that uses some sort of SSL encryption with pre-exchanged keys to prevent any man-in-the-middle attacks at the POS terminal.

          • by HungryHobo (1314109) on Friday July 13, 2012 @12:28PM (#40639967)

            option 2: phone malware picks up your details the next time you use the app.

            option 3: pre installed networkcrapware like this
            http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/01/technology/carrier_iq/index.htm [cnn.com] destroys any semblance of security.

            • I would suggest reading how those "virtual wallets" are actually implemented first. It always includes some form of hardware encryption, so hacking the app itself is not sufficient.

          • by paiute (550198)

            1. Thief steals wallet from car.

            I can choose not to leave my wallet in my car. I can't choose whether the bank leaves my virtual wallet in their virtual car with the virtual doors unlocked.

    • Now I no longer have to wait to lose my physical wallet to go through the agony of canceling and replacing credit cards. It can be lost more efficiently in the cloud.

      And be replaced just as well.

      • Really, you have just lost your phone with your virtual wallet, how are you going to call and cancel all of your credit cards? For that matter, now that all of your credit card information is in your phone and you no longer carry any in your wallet, how are you going to pay for anything (such as gas to get home)?
        What this does is substitute a single point of failure for what is now redundancy.
        • 1) I was being a bit facetious. My point, anything made of software can be duplicated.

          2) I don't believe the information will be on a device except in tokenized form, ie. a server somewhere in the cloud will most likely hold the real information. Not that this doesn't hold a lot of issues with security in itself, but that's not my argument to make.

          • So what if the information is not on the device? You have lost access to it and someone else has gained access to it. How long will it take you to cut off their access to it? My problem with this is that it creates a single point of failure for even more elements of your life. While it is convenient to have all of that stuff in one place, at some point it becomes outrageously difficult to fix it if that place becomes compromised.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 13, 2012 @11:07AM (#40639141)

    FTFA:

    Retailers can use the information contained in transactions, stripped of details that violate privacy laws, to tailor offerings or promotions to consumers. And the banks figure they can build a new business from that new world. Location data on phones can help neighbourhood stores connect with customers in the area, while transaction data online can give insight into consumer habits and tastes.

    The title of the article should read:

    "Canadian banks rushing to offer your private buying history to the highest bidder"

    • by tomhath (637240)

      Not just the highest bidder. It will be sold to everyone.

      Privacy aside, the idea of my phone being spammed every time I get near a store or restaurant is a big concern. This should really be an op-in feature. But that'll never happen.

    • I can't believe that more people aren't alarmed by this type of thing. People don't value their privacy any more, and I don't understand why.
      • by Bucky24 (1943328)
        Given the choice between privacy vs convenience most people will choose convenience every time.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Why doesn't society care about privacy anymore?

    1) I do not want every store I shop at to have my name and phone number.
    2) I do not want my bank to have a full list of where and when I bought stuff, how much I spent and, possibly, what exactly I bought.
    3) I don't want stores to keep tabs on what I buy.
    4) I don't want my virtual wallet to be compromised should I somehow lose my phone.

    Sorry, but you should be happy enough that I shop at your store. I do not owe you to let you provide me with advertisements.
    I'l

    • by Bigbutt (65939)

      Cash. That's what I've been doing lately especially with many places starting to not accept credit cards.

      [John]

      • by hendridm (302246)

        with many places starting to not accept credit cards.

        Really? That seems like a good way for the business to lose a lot of sales.

        • >> with many places starting to not accept credit cards.

          > Really? That seems like a good way for the business to lose a lot of sales.

          Ever heard the joke about "we'll lose money on every transaction, but make up for it in volume"? All that "lot of sales" is going to come at the cost of 2 or 3 percent cut by the credit card issuer. In a business with thin profit margins, it can mean the difference between profit and loss. That's why those places are willing to "sacrifice" that business.

    • Leonard Cohen predicted this decades ago:

      "There's gonna be a meter on your bed which will disclose
      What everybody knows."

    • by Jmc23 (2353706)
      Why doesn't society care about good service and human interaction anymore? Remember when a store owner knew your name? Knew what you regularly bought and had it ready for you? Offered you discounts for loyalty and for things you purchased often? I can't understand all these people paranoid about their privacy. Really, how does being offered discounts on products you actually buy and use constitute a bad thing. Are you such a sick deviant fuck that you are ashamed by your purchases, or buying illegal t
      • by pla (258480)
        Really, how does being offered discounts on products you actually buy and use constitute a bad thing.

        Just make them cheaper to start with and skip the games. Simple enough for ya?


        Are you such a sick deviant fuck that you are ashamed by your purchases, or buying illegal things, or buying things to commit illegal actions?

        8/10.


        Seriously? Get over it.

        I pay with cash. Consider me over it.
      • by JustOK (667959)

        Are you such a sick deviant fuck that you want to know what everyone else is doing and buying? Seems like. Maybe you're just a shill. Seems like you're very quick to assume that someone that wants privacy, that doesn't want other people to know what they buy, means they are doing naughty things. You may have gotten a discount price on your brain, but I don't think you got a good value.

        And that world you're thinking of? Just a myth shrouded thru the fog of TV and movies.

        • by Jmc23 (2353706)
          You're not very coherent, but what the hell.

          If you aren't ashamed of something or doing something that shouldn't be done, then why are these people so concerned about databases (not other humans) knowing their purchasing habits?

          Seriously, why are people so afraid of people finding out who they actually are?

          I'd say most US'ians are just paranoid people who don't know themselves or others and want to keep it that way.

          • by JustOK (667959)

            If I've got nothing to hide, why do you feel so strongly that you should be allowed to look?

            • by Jmc23 (2353706)
              Why would I want to look?

              I think the whole privacy crap in the USA is because people are so self-important that they actually think their life matters to other people. But really, except for a few outliers nobody could care about your buying habits. Companies don't even care about 'your' buying habits, they care about the aggregate data. The only thing that cares about matching up your identity and buying habits is some automated software that'll send you propaganda.

              What's really funny about the whole

              • by JustOK (667959)

                If they don't care about my buying habits, why do they work so hard to track it?

                • by Jmc23 (2353706)
                  Learn to read and think. They don't care about you as an individual or a person, just an anonymous consuming unit.
                  • by JustOK (667959)

                    You don't seem to understand what anonymous means.

                    • by Jmc23 (2353706)
                      You don't seem to understand the difference between reality and paranoid delusions. No HUMAN is going around checking your purchase habits. You don't matter anymore to business as a person. You figure the US would be so happy that not only do they get the depersonalization of service that their paranoia demands but they also get cheaper products.

                      Oh no! some electrical pattern in some computer in some warehouse in the middle of nowhere knows I buy apples every week and they send me a coupon every week!

          • by dryeo (100693)

            If you aren't ashamed of something or doing something that shouldn't be done, then why are these people so concerned

            Everyone shits but are concerned about privacy. Most everyone masturbates, but want to do it in privacy.

            Seriously, why are people so afraid of people finding out who they actually are?

            Everyone thinks they are different. Some are and the rest of us have been convinced that we're different and have things to be ashamed of.

  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSpoom (715771) <slashdot@@@uberm00...net> on Friday July 13, 2012 @11:12AM (#40639189) Homepage Journal

    Did anyone else read the entire summary and still have no idea WTF it's talking about? Something to do with aliasing personal information to merchants... so they can target advertising... when the merchant has all the customer's personal data out of necessity anyway...?

    Canadians already primarily use a card system called Interac to make most purchases; granted, it's been a while since I lived in Canada but even three years ago it was very rare for me to make a cash purchase.

    Reading TFA it seems like it's talking about cell phone wireless payments, and banks selling your demographic information to retailers. Frankly, if my bank did that, I'd opt out of it immediately, and potentially change banks if they didn't allow the opt-out. This suggests to me that within five years there will be no bank that will allow opting-out unless it's protected by law.

    • sure in the technical sense most harem girls are wearing pants but its not like 1 they conceal anything at all 2 they wont come off if you so much as stare at them hard

      in similar fashion the "security" for this will work

    • by azalin (67640)
      Let's use an internet version of this business model: The Google add system. Google/the banks will know a lot about you. They sell merchants the options to advertise to their intended demographic, but not the info itself (that would be facebook). The merchant is not supposed to know who you are, just that you are a potential customer (based on past purchases). The merchants will also get anonymous data for marketing to consider the right demographic to address.
      At least that's what I consider this to be.
    • by Piata (927858)
      I'm Canadian and I still make mostly cash purchases expressly to avoid giving merchants/banks a record of my purchasing history. And no, I don't see any value in being more directly targeted in marketing based on my previous purchases. I'm tired of being told what a product can do for me, how it will make me think or feel and how it's perfectly suited to my lifestyle. The only thing marketing makes me want to buy is the building materials for a cabin in the woods.
    • >s. Frankly, if my bank did that, I'd opt out of it immediately, and potentially change banks if they didn't allow the opt-out.

      Not related to this article but I already know a LOT of people who just store living expenses in their banks are are converting their income into buying silver and other metals. Money is really worth nothing and chances of precious metals sinking is slim to none, while currency is not guaranteed at all.

    • Canadians already primarily use a card system called Interac to make most purchases; granted, it's been a while since I lived in Canada but even three years ago it was very rare for me to make a cash purchase.

      I see no evidence that your experience is typical. Cash is widely used, as are credit cards. We are far from being a cashless society. I only use Interac a few times a year. Interac has been hit with fraud sprees by criminals using tampered skimmers. Unlike with credit cards, where banks impose

      • by TheSpoom (715771)

        I think it depends where you are (where are you?)... I lived in southwestern Ontario.

  • The whole point of Paypal was you don't have to give your cc number to the vendor; it'll stay with Paypal.

    But people found out Paypal's not necessarily always your pal.

    Anyway, if these banks are offering this service, would there remain a reason for Paypal?

    • by RattFink (93631)

      The whole point of Paypal was you don't have to give your cc number to the vendor; it'll stay with Paypal.

      A little like contracting smallpox to keep you from catching cowpox.

    • by Bieeanda (961632)
      That depends on how much of a pain international payments will be to make. I can't speak for other Canadians, but virtually the only times I use Paypal I'm paying for goods or services from the States.
    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      Anyway, if these banks are offering this service, would there remain a reason for Paypal?

      Easy, paypal is the only company offering ONE service that NO ONE ELSE does. Allow random joes to accept a credit card without a merchant account.

      If you're a business, Paypal offers you nothing more than what a regular merchant account does - to a business, it IS a regular merchant account.

      If you're an individual, accepting credit cards is nigh-impossible as merchant accounts are extremely difficult to obtain for indivi

  • We're approaching a point where full records (and analysis) of consumer habits will be available from multiple sources. From how we find what we buy (google, etc), the stores themselves (from amazon and fresh direct to local grocery stores and pharmacies) down to how we pay (banks and credit cards). While there is some movement towards "Do Not Track", it is only for that very first step. What we need is a "Do Not Track" option that extends beyond browsing on the web, and allows us to purchase goods without
  • canada will lead here, because you need a government entity to dictate the terms of something like a virtual wallet

    private market forces do not necessarily lead to advancement, because there is no natural market that is not dominated and suppressed by it's largest players. for example: mastercard and visa will stymie google's and apple's virtual wallet efforts out of jealousy and wanting to monopolize that action themselves

    and then we will have the crackpots WHARRGARBLing about virtual currency and paranoid

    • by metrix007 (200091)

      Canada will not lead here, because their banking system is woefully behind the times. They don't even have visa debit cards yet, so I can't use my standard visa debit card without it being treated like a credit card, needing a much m=higher minimum puchase etc. Pathetic.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday July 13, 2012 @11:34AM (#40639405) Homepage

    They already tried this in the USA with the stupid nearfield credit cards. it was an epic failure. Paypal has tried it several times and failed and is on their next failure with this technology.

    People DO NOT WANT to have loosey Goosey access to their money. It is why you dont see RFID on all your groceries and a push and pay register at Walmart... if they could lay off almost all the cashiers forever they would.

    Good luck canada, but Mastercard could not get enough banks and people to use their atempt, I think you will have about the same chance.

    • by swillden (191260)

      You're wrong, this is going to happen.

      Visa and MasterCard have announced that they'll implement the chip card liability shift next year in North America. What that means is that starting in 2013 all liability for fraudulent transactions will accrue to whichever links in the chain (issuing bank, merchant, merchant acquiring bank, clearinghouse) do not have the chip-based technology implemented. Since merchants pay for nearly all of the credit card fraud, you'll see a very fast response from them to add t

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        Almost nobody wants the nearfield cards except for merchants and the banks. Because it's easier to spend they get more money.

        Several of the fast food resturants around here, Mc Donalds for example had the readers outside the drive up windows and have cince removed them as nobody was using them. Even TARGET, has removed all the nearfield readers from all their stores.

        I suggest looking at what the stores are doing and ignore the PR releases from the banks. No way in hell Mastercard is going to up the fee

        • by swillden (191260)

          Almost nobody wants the nearfield cards except for merchants and the banks.

          If the merchants and banks want them... they'll happen. And, actually, consumers like them too once they use them.

          Several of the fast food resturants around here, Mc Donalds for example had the readers outside the drive up windows and have cince removed them as nobody was using them.

          Sure, because hardly anyone has the cards, or phones with virtual wallets, yet, and there's no liability-related reason for merchants to care. But both parts of that are changing.

  • All my cards and such in one place.

    Much easier for me to just wave my phone or whatever and it gets deducted. Just hope I choose the right 'card'.

    And much, MUCH easier for the crooks to steal one thing, instead of going after each of my accounts one at time. One-stop shopping for them.

    No, I'm not cynical, much.

    Progress.

  • Banks rushing headlong into some whiz-bang, poorly understood, but technology-based solution (product) for a problem that doesn't exist, but surely will make them a lot of money, without first fully considering or mitigating the obvious potential risks. Film at 11.

    Is this not the history of the banking sector for at least a generation?
  • by azalin (67640) on Friday July 13, 2012 @12:05PM (#40639713)
    What's the worst that could happen? There is no way that idea could wreak havoc to you finances if something goes wrong. Actually forget the "if" and replace it "once". One basket was not a good idea a few hundred years ago when carrying eggs and still isn't.
  • Just another way of saying powerless. He who controls the bits controls how much money you 'actually' have... and how you 'actually' voted.

    A paper trail really is right up there as a facet of a truly free and open society; we casually abandon it at our peril.
  • I only see benefits for the banks in this scheme.

    First, they will now have access to a crapload more data about people's shopping habits that they can mine and sell.

    Second, service charges. Hey now instead of paying for the privilege of using your debit card to Bank A, you can also pay a service charge on top of that to Bank B who is providing this digital wallet.

    Zero benefit for the customer.

    1) I already carry a physical wallet. I keep my cards in it and they are always with me -- digital wallet provides

    • Using credit cards gives your information to foreign corporations (USA) who process all this information in the USA and naturally their government has access to all of it. Don't expect it to go well, Russia tried to at least have the data processed within their nation and lost that fight.

      Canada is more likely to have standards develop and government (post Harper) properly regulate it; plus they do have credit unions... Wasn't Canada the nation who's government was looking into providing official electronic

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Working...