Let your fingers do the paying

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
If you can pay using this technology - I can see it being put into firearms in the not too distant future.

Why limit this to a fingerprint scan? How about registering some DNA with Walmart, Costco, etc. and let me spit at the register to pay? Other bodily functions should be useable too, but not wanting to offend Art's Grandma I won't detail what they might be here.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_fortune_biometrics/index.htm

NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - Buying groceries with the touch of a finger could be closer than you think, if new research touting the benefits of biometric payment for retail giants like Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco is anything to go by.

The report, by Sanford Bernstein analyst Emme Kozloff, found that the use of so-called "electronic wallets" reduces the potential for fraud and identity theft, speeds up the checkout process, and most importantly, lowers transaction processing fees for retailers, improving their bottom line. A 20% reduction in processing costs at big-box discounters like Wal-Mart over the next several years could result in a 3% to 4% increase in earnings per share by 2009, the report estimated. "We believe both Wal-Mart (Research) and Costco (Research) are looking at it closely," Kozloff wrote. (Both companies declined to comment.)

Already in use at supermarket chains like Albertsons (Research) (which yesterday agreed to be sold to a group that includes CVS and Supervalu), Cub Foods (part of Supervalu), and privately held Piggly Wiggly, biometric systems are just one of several emerging payment technologies that retailers are currently experimenting with. Others include self-checkout (widely deployed at Home Depot), contactless cards like J.P Morgan Chase's "blink," and so-called "near field communication," which involves waving your cell phone, say, near a reader.

Here's how biometric payment works: To set up an account, customers scan their fingerprint at an in-store kiosk, enter their phone number, and then submit checking and credit card account information. To make a purchase, they place their finger on a scanner at the register, enter their phone number, and choose how they want to pay (credit, debit, or checking.)

The mere mention of bio-anything raises the hackles of privacy advocates, and this process is no exception. Vendors like San Francisco-based Pay By Touch, however, which recently acquired BioPay, its main rival in this space, insist that the fingerprint image itself is not stored. Instead, tiny measurements from the print are encrypted and stored, making it impossible to recreate a full fingerprint.

The benefits to customers are twofold. First, it offers a speedier checkout—70% faster than traditional forms of payment (unless the reader can't identify your finger, so keep those hands clean.) Second, it enhances security. Of the nearly 10 million cases of identity theft annually, according to a 2003 Federal Trade Commission survey, 13% occurred during a purchase transaction. "Biometric payment systems make conducting transactions safer for consumers," writes Kozloff.

But it's the benefit to retailers that could really drive adoption. Transaction fees paid by retailers for credit and debit card payments have soared of late, and can account for about 20% of pretax profits for a low margin retailer like Costco, Kozloff estimates. Retailers hate these fees (also called "intercharge fees") and have filed numerous lawsuits against Visa and MasterCard, some of which have attained class action status.

Paying by fingerprint is one way to lower these costs. With a biometric system, retailers can "steer" customers towards using their checking account, which incurs much lower transaction costs than credit and debit cards do. AMR Research's Scott Langdoc estimates that switching from credit cards to checking accounts could shave the net cost of a transaction by anywhere from 40 cents to 70 cents. "That's big money," he says.

Within three months of a pilot program at four Piggly Wiggly grocery stores, 15% of its customers who normally did not pay by cash enrolled in the Pay By Touch system. Those users increased their store visits by 15%, which translates into an additional 7,350 transactions a year. Not only did they come more often, those shoppers also spent 12% more on groceries.

"Grocery stores operate on such low margins that this makes sense for them," says Don Delzell, a partner at consultancy Retail Advantage.

But biometric is not without its concerns, chief among them privacy. The privacy issue "remains a deep bone of contention and will mitigate against pervasive usage," says David Robertson, publisher of The Nilson Report, an industry newsletter. One industry source calls biometric readers "clunky." And if enrollment is confusing or time-consuming, few shoppers will even bother.

"It's a leap of faith when retailers install the system," says industry consultant Ron Margulis. "But once shoppers are used to it, it can really take off." And it might even take retailers' sluggish stock prices along for the ride.
 
another great system

Until the time it gets compromised . . . try proving you DIDN'T buy $$$$ worth of Cosco stuff two states over when they "prove" it was your fingerprint that was used . . .:rolleyes:

Biometrics are basically fancy simplex locks. The "ID in theory", say a fingerprint, is simply reduced to a set of several variables (like the buttons on a simplex lock). Have someone figure out how to mimic those variables, and let the party begin . . .:uhoh:
 
Quackery...

I call B.S on their rationale....

The mere mention of bio-anything raises the hackles of privacy advocates, and this process is no exception. Vendors like San Francisco-based Pay By Touch, however, which recently acquired BioPay, its main rival in this space, insist that the fingerprint image itself is not stored. Instead, tiny measurements from the print are encrypted and stored, making it impossible to recreate a full fingerprint.

It is already illegal to recreate a "card track read" from its components, however, even without the "discretionary data" at the end of the track, most back-ends can't figure out that the re-assembled track is fraudulent right away, and this bio-metric data won't be any different. Recreate (or better yet fraudulently capture) the data points, and it won't matter if you have the print or not, the customer is going to lose the chargeback (payment dispute).

How do you claim that your print has been compromised, and get a new one issued? You can't.


The benefits to customers are twofold. First, it offers a speedier checkout—70% faster than traditional forms of payment (unless the reader can't identify your finger, so keep those hands clean.) Second, it enhances security. Of the nearly 10 million cases of identity theft annually, according to a 2003 Federal Trade Commission survey, 13% occurred during a purchase transaction. "Biometric payment systems make conducting transactions safer for consumers," writes Kozloff.

Same thing signature capture was supposed to do, except there are only 1 or 2 acquirers of the data that do anything (or even take an upload of) the signature or a hash of it, its just there (at the merchant database level, of all places) in case of chargeback.

RFID is a much speedier checkout, why not resolve its issues? Smart cards with a tied-in pin would work better with no privacy issues, why force every merchant to go with (pay for) biometric readers, since most terminals already have smart-card ability?

Further, if only 13% of all fraud is at point-of-sale, that leaves what, 87% elsewhere... why not solve the larger problem first? Insider fraud (at the institutional level) probably accounts for more, but you won't see that addressed or expounded on.

But it's the benefit to retailers that could really drive adoption. Transaction fees paid by retailers for credit and debit card payments have soared of late, and can account for about 20% of pretax profits for a low margin retailer like Costco, Kozloff estimates. Retailers hate these fees (also called "intercharge fees") and have filed numerous lawsuits against Visa and MasterCard, some of which have attained class action status.

Wrong, the lawsuits over interchange have to do with "Pinless Debit" and "BIN validation" schemes, not costs per-se. That's where the merchants hardware/software figures out whether that "credit card" is really a "credit/debit" card, and then prompts the cardholder immediately to use the card as debit, forcing the cardholder to "opt out" of it and choose credit (Walmart comes immediately to mind). Card issuers that also process transactions mid-level (collect interchange fees) hate that and have sued. Why? Because credit transactions typically cost some number of cents plus a percentage of the sale, while debit costs more pennies, but no percentage. On larger purchases, the savings on interchange is substantial.

NONE of that has anything to do with transactional security.

Paying by fingerprint is one way to lower these costs. With a biometric system, retailers can "steer" customers towards using their checking account, which incurs much lower transaction costs than credit and debit cards do. AMR Research's Scott Langdoc estimates that switching from credit cards to checking accounts could shave the net cost of a transaction by anywhere from 40 cents to 70 cents. "That's big money," he says.

Finally we get some truth, it's a way to force debit transactons... except now we're going to tie people's biometrics right back to their bank accounts. No more ambiguity or indirection allowed, and it all goes thru the interchange networks every night. No thanks. I can write a draft (check) without a fingerprint on file, why do suddenly I need one to get money from my account now? How is it faster than ATM debit + PIN entry that happens concurrently with the transaction being rung up? It isn't.

In Canada, debit is vastly prefereable to credit by the population, in the USA it's the opposite. Since the market won't change, the banks are determined to change it artificially.

Within three months of a pilot program at four Piggly Wiggly grocery stores, 15% of its customers who normally did not pay by cash enrolled in the Pay By Touch system. Those users increased their store visits by 15%, which translates into an additional 7,350 transactions a year. Not only did they come more often, those shoppers also spent 12% more on groceries.

15% of "those who didn't pay by cash at four stores"... what is the real number and percentage , 10 people, or 3%? They came 15% more often, but spent 12% more? Whose grocery bill went up by 12%, or were the food prices rising responsible? The cheering section is mute on these questions.

Another bad idea being peddled, whose only real impact is to tie biometrics to bank accounts.

If I had to guess thru a tinfoil hat, the private-bank issued cards you get to access your foreign holdings are the secondary targets, while data-mining the funding streams and comparing to national fingerprint databases (after all, they can generate the same ID from those print images) the primary objective.
 
antarti said:
How do you claim that your print has been compromised, and get a new one issued? You can't.

Thats an interesting thought that I hadn't considered.

Boys (and girls) THAT is how we will defeat this crap. THAT is how we'll get the folk who think you're a paranoid kook for opposing this stuff on our side.
 
A 20% reduction in processing costs at big-box discounters like Wal-Mart over the next several years could result in a 3% to 4% increase in earnings per share by 2009, the report estimated.
Once again the consumer increases profit for the company with no savings to the consumer. A short time ago Jewel went to self checkouts. I asked the clerk how much am I going to save by checking my own groceries? He replied "nothing". Then I said is Jewel going to send me a paycheck for doing work for them? He frowned and replied "no". Then I said I'm not checking my own groceries.
I have a better idea take DNA also and give it to the police then they and the stores can swap finger prints/DNA. Them come to your house and see if you live where you say you do!!!!!!!!!:fire: :banghead: :cuss:
 
Until the time it gets compromised

It already has been:http://cq.cx/verichip.pl

In Brief: Verichip markets their product for access control. This means that you could have a chip implanted, and then your front door would unlock when your shoulder got close to the reader. Let us imagine that you did this; then, I could sit next to you on the subway, and read your chip's ID. At this point I can break in to your house, by replaying that ID. So now you have to change your ID; but as far as I know, you cannot do this without surgery.

None of this ought to surprise you.

* * I will briefly describe the steps that I went through to duplicate an ID-only RFID tag using my proxmarkii device. We will be cloning a Verichip, which should not rationally make any of this more interesting but does. As we will discover, they are built with no security. This will therefore not be difficult.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top