zlacker

[return to "Experimental release of GrapheneOS for Pixel 9a"]
1. verslu+1B[view] [source] 2025-04-13 09:42:13
>>moelf+(OP)
I love GrapheneOS. The biggest downside is that Google integrity API block wireless payments in Google Pay. All Dutch banks now advertise to install Google pay for wireless payments. I've tried asking Google to support GrapheneOS but they told me to do a feature request. Which I did and got no reply to. I've contacted the consumer market authority and made a formal complaint since Google and Apple share effectively a contactless payments duopoly and decide which OS distributions get access. Those are closed source and usually bundled with a lot of spyware. I also explained how the Google integrity API might affect banking availability in the future (and already does for some banking apps). They took it very seriously and I hope to hear from them in the future.
◧◩
2. palata+YG[view] [source] 2025-04-13 10:58:19
>>verslu+1B
> All Dutch banks now advertise to install Google pay for wireless payments.

That sounds like a very big mistake to me. And a missed opportunity: in some countries, banked work together to develop their own systems. People can send money to each other and pay everywhere with a small app that is not BigTech from the US.

I think there should be such an app in every country; you don't want your payment system to fully depend on US companies.

◧◩◪
3. dzikim+eL[view] [source] 2025-04-13 11:57:56
>>palata+YG
Banks do that for p2p payments and e-commerce (like iDeal mentioned by sibling comment or BLIK in Poland).

For physical transactions there's barrier of hardware and network effect - everybody has card terminal. Users expect near 100% acceptance for them to use payment method daily.

If you consider creating own NFC payment app instead of Google/Apple Pay - that's actually possible, but more expensive and often disliked by the users due to inability to easily switch between cards issued by different apps.

◧◩◪◨
4. palata+gW[view] [source] 2025-04-13 13:50:48
>>dzikim+eL
As mentioned in the sibling comment, Twint goes with QR code. It just works.

It's even better than NFC because a small store can print their QR code on a piece of paper and not need to buy a terminal. Most stores just have the normal card terminal print the QR code and people scan it.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. andrew+IP1[view] [source] 2025-04-13 22:11:32
>>palata+gW
NFC, for payments, has bidirectional communications and limited scope for MITM. It's a bit too easy to cover a sticker.

The TWINT app says -- if their promo videos are to be trusted -- "Scan only QR codes from trusted sources and check the receiver of the payment in the next step". That doesn't fill me with confidence :(.

A dynamic QR code could be fine -- they have their app, you're able to bootstrap what is effectively a secure channel between the PoS machine and the app to give the vendor confidence their device has received payment and the consumer confidence that they're paying the right vendor. A static QR code is more challenging, and it sounds like they're putting more weight into social protections than I'm comfortable with -- especially considering a technical solution is possible and exists.

I'm especially wary of the warning that individuals can't have QR codes. Why not? Unless it's part of the social protection. But I can personally accept NFC contactless payments (having opened an account with a suitable provider), and indeed I bought a device which means I can accept chip and PIN payments too.

[go to top]