Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Almighty Buck United Kingdom

Paypal Rolls Out Photo Verification Trial In UK 61

Posted by samzenpus
from the your-real-money-is-no-good-here dept.
kdryer39 writes "Retailers in Richmond upon Thames are among the first to allow shoppers to leave their wallets at home and pay for items using just the PayPal app and their profile picture. The app for iOS, Windows OS and Android phones highlights nearby shops and restaurants that accept PayPal before the customer checks in by clicking on the required retailer and sliding an animated pin down on their screen. At present, only 12 merchants are using the system but it expects more than 2,000 locations will have the ability to use the app by the end of 2013."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paypal Rolls Out Photo Verification Trial In UK

Comments Filter:
  • wallet (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom (822) on Friday August 09, 2013 @05:31AM (#44518301) Homepage Journal

    At present, only 12 merchants are using the system

    Which makes the "leave wallet at home" statement pure hyperbole.

    • Re:wallet (Score:4, Funny)

      by Dupple (1016592) on Friday August 09, 2013 @05:33AM (#44518303)

      It'll be interesting how this works out. Normally when I'm in Richmond, I'm off my face and can't find my wallet

    • by Dogers (446369)

      VISA & co haven't even gotten the stupid contactless stuff everywhere yet - how on earth does PayPal expect to break in?

  • fuck paypal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ionix5891 (1228718) on Friday August 09, 2013 @05:33AM (#44518305)

    They close accounts without providing reasons nor being able to get in contact with a human

    this is not "news for nerds" this is a "this marketing message has been brought to you by the Paypal PR department"

    • Re:fuck paypal (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo (196126) * <(mojo) (at) (world3.net)> on Friday August 09, 2013 @07:06AM (#44518497) Homepage

      It's interesting because they need your profile picture on file. PayPal are getting all wet at the thought of having every customer's face in their database, to help them harass unfortunate victims of fraud. It gives them a legitimate reason to store that information, which would otherwise be illegal in most European countries.

      • by manu0601 (2221348)

        It gives them a legitimate reason to store [the customer's face], which would otherwise be illegal in most European countries.

        It does not have to be illegal. As I understand the spirit of privacy laws that exist in EU, if (1) there is a legitimate reason, (2) user is made ware, and (3) you do not retain it after you do not need it anymore (the customer ceased to use the service), then it should be fine.

    • by Seumas (6865)

      This is an interesting idea from the wrong company.

    • by MrNemesis (587188)

      I was about to reply with a post about "...but here in the EU (unlike the US IIRC), PayPal *is* classified as a bank and therefore has to comply with much stricter legistlation than they appear to have to do in the US".

      But in looking for a citation I found these:
      http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391236-Paypal-freezing-closing-accounts [consumerac...roup.co.uk]
      http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?235225-Paypal-claim-and-the-small-claims-court [consumerac...roup.co.uk]...
      http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthrea [moneysavingexpert.com]

    • by Tom (822)

      They are, however, BBB accredited and have an excellent rating:
      http://www.bbb.org/sanjose/business-reviews/payment-processing-service/paypal-in-san-jose-ca-210387 [bbb.org]

      Compare that to, say, Steam's mother Valve:
      https://www.bbb.org/western-washington/business-reviews/computer-software-publishers-and-developers/valve-corporation-in-bellevue-wa-27030704 [bbb.org]

      which gets a straight F for pretty much the same reasons you claim for PayPal. I'm not a friend of PayPal and would move elsewhere if that were a serious option, but

    • As a professional flack, I have massive respect for the PayPal flack who got this on the front page of Slashdot, I would not even have tried. There is a reason for sites like PayPalSucks [paypalsucks.com]. Speaking only for myself, my personal experience with PayPal has been HORRIBLE. Currently, I use We Pay [wepay.com] and thus far have not had any issues. Speaking ONLY for myself.
    • But at least they aren't subject to banking regulation! That has to count for something, right?

  • Missing info (Score:4, Informative)

    by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Friday August 09, 2013 @05:41AM (#44518317) Homepage
    The information that actually goes with the headline, but was left out of TFS:

    The customer's name and photo then appears on the shop's payment system and the retailer charges them by clicking on their image.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So my twin brother can take all my money now?

  • by MrL0G1C (867445) on Friday August 09, 2013 @06:31AM (#44518439) Journal

    So paypal get their % cut and then the card company get their % cut. No thanks, this makes goods more expensive.

    • by dimeglio (456244)
      What are the alternatives for on-line commerce? Bank transfers don't seem too popular. Paying cash or by cheque is silly. Prepaid cards have fees. ?
      • Among the alternatives you list, one stands out as merely "unpopular" rather than having sound reasons against it.
      • by PhillC (84728)
        Why is paying cash silly? Maybe in Korea only old people use cash, but I generally find it far more convenient than making card payments. I usually withdraw a couple of hundred Pounds from an ATM, then use that money to buy most things under £100 until the cash runs out, then withdraw some more. This, to me, seems like quite a sensible way to operate, not silly at all.
        • by PhillC (84728)
          Oh fuck, if I'd read your post thoroughly, I'd see you were talking about on-line commerce only. My point was with regards to using cash in bricks and mortar transactions.
      • by MrL0G1C (867445)

        The summary is about Paypal being used at high street retailers, so cash and debit/credit cards are suitable.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Other "banks" require government licenses and are heavily regulated. And I consider paypal a bank because it has control over the funds it keeps for its users, just like a bank.

    • by Hognoxious (631665) on Friday August 09, 2013 @07:07AM (#44518501) Homepage Journal

      I agree. If it waddles like a bank and quacks like a bank then it's a bank.

      Unless it's a building society. Assuming they still exist...

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Nationwide in the UK is a huge Building Society. Actually I think it is or was the worlds biggest.

        There are like 40-50+ of them in the UK last I checked Wikipedia. Yeah 45 now. 2008 killed a few. Damn 2008.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Paypal is goverment regulated and is indeed a considered a bank by European goverments.

      • by jonbryce (703250)

        They are registered as an "electronic money issuer" in Luxembourg. A registration in one EU country is valid in all EU countries. It is not quite the same as a bank, the main difference is that there is no deposit insurance in the event that they go bust, however, unlike real banks, they are required to keep customers' money in a separate ring-fenced account.

    • by CastrTroy (595695) on Friday August 09, 2013 @08:41AM (#44518879) Homepage
      Yeah, because it was PayPal, not the banks, that lead to a world-wide financial crisis. Although I understand what you're saying, I don't trust that government regulation will protect us from everything. Make sure you understand the agreements you are entering into with your banking institution. There are thousands of banks in the US. I highly doubt that all of them are that trustworthy or safe with your money.
  • Isn't this exactly what Square has done for some time? Nothing new here... move along.
  • This can be summed up by saying: a company has a product being used by an absurdly small number of people but expects it to grow immensely in a very short period of time.

    Well no kidding. Of course they expect it to grow rapidly, they're the ones selling it! Do they have any real evidence to suggest that this will actually happen? Of course not.

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.

Working...