×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Google Mobile-Payment Patent Raises Privacy Flags

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the can't-open-a-lemonade-stand-without-privacy-concerns dept.

Google 83

bizwriter writes "Google has been interested in the mobile payment business, with rumored service tests coming soon. Now the rumors have some more tangible back-up in the form of a patent application that not only describes a versatile payment system, but one in which Google would obtain details of purchasing that are normally unavailable." Reader Batblue points out a related article about how the temptation of 'big data' is leading businesses to draw us closer to a surveillance society.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Google needs to start caring about peoples privacy (0, Flamebait)

devokso (2026060) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612128)

Google wants to datamine everything and isn't shy to violate some privacy in the progress? Call me surprised. This isn't even some random company that wants to do it. It's a company which business model is advertising and collecting data. They have a huge larger interest in datamining than usual companies.

When you usually pay your purchases via merchant, the payment processing company only gets the total value of items. They don't know what you're buying. Now Google wants to get all that data too - name of the porn movies you buy, what food you eat, how you never buy any condoms, and how you bought a book that tries to teach you self-respect. They get all this information, when you buy it and where you go. Soon you began seeing related ads everywhere. Your Google searches will be full of "lose weight" and "not getting laid?" advertisements.

I wish there was a payment processor I could pay extra for not trying to fuck me in the ass all the time. But compared to Google, they're just like little kids fingers. But Google, no. Google is the 500lb gorilla that will do major damage to your anus. And it will be bloody, and it will hurt for a long time. I'm getting sick and tired of that, and I hope no more people give in. It's the same issue with software. Who wants to have adware on their computer? Who wants to be tracked all the time? Well, if your primary business model is in the advertising business, that's how you make money off people. Your customers aren't the people using software, they're advertising. When I'm buying software from lets say Microsoft, I know what I will get. I know how they make their money and it is in their best interest not to lose customers faith. We, the people using Microsoft's products, are the customers. Not some shady advertisers who's primary goal is to violate your privacy and steal your hard earned money.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (1, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612174)

Shill spotted.

Also you might want to look into WGA's phone-home behavior. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612270)

Please just stop this shill calling bullshit already. It's in every story now a days. Just because someone doesn't like the same things you do doesn't make him a shill.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612416)

Not only is the guy a shill, he's a pretty lame troll. To respond to him is even more lame. Now go away. We know you're the same shill as the original poster.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612566)

But the fact that he consistently gets FP on stories and manages to slip something about how great Microsoft is into the post somewhere, and note that his 3-paragraph essay took him < 1 minute to write and post...

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (1)

praetorian20 (1723296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612502)

I'm not a Microsoft employee, or a particularly big fan of the company either. But I completely agree with the OP; MS is happy just knowing that you're buying their product. They're not interested in knowing that you have trouble getting it up so they can serve you Cialis ads. The biggest thing you gotta worry about MS is that if the product you bought isn't doing too well they'll kill it off and leave you hanging.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612776)

You make a classic Slashdotter mistake, which is presuming that shill == automatically wrong, or that shill == someone I disagree with. It's neither. You can agree with a shill, and he can even be correct in his statements. devxo (the OP) actually has a fairly good record for a shill -- out of his ~30 previous first posts, I've agreed with him on roughly half his posts.

So I guess I just wanted to say, you concurring with the OP doesn't not make him a shill or a troll.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (1)

praetorian20 (1723296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35613006)

I concur your analysis is not incorrect.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35613072)

It seems I was channeling Uncyclopedia on double negatives [wikia.com] :). Sorry.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (1, Funny)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612342)

> When I'm buying software from lets say Microsoft, I know what I will get. I know how they make their money and it is in their best interest not to lose customers faith.

Windows Vista.

Your argument is invalid.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (1, Flamebait)

m50d (797211) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612688)

Vista worked and worked fine. I don't get all the hate.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612952)

Windows ME
Kin ... ...

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612962)

Vista is crap. It's bloatde, not secure, can hand file moves well, and well a great deal of many thing.

And I am not a Windows hater, I just calls them as I sees them. AS a Windows developer it is in my best interests t be critical and realistic of their OS. Win 7 and XP are both superior to Vista, but for different reasons.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35615050)

It's bloatde, not secure, can hand file moves well, and well a great deal of many thing. ... I just calls them as I sees them. AS a Windows developer it is in my best interests t be critical and realistic of their OS.

Serious question: were you drunk when you typed that?

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (1)

gfreeman (456642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35613076)

I like Windows, but Vista was that decade's ME.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35613518)

This is Slashdot. They hate Windows 7 despite it being otherwise widely praised and loved.

Vista broke a fair bit of binary compatibility, which was unusual for Windows, and drivers weren't ready for it on launch. Never mind that Linux seemingly breaks binary compatibility every friggin' version, and is still spotty with driver support...

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35613620)

This is Slashdot. They hate Windows 7 despite it being otherwise widely praised and loved.

That's just not true, which you can verify by searching /. for Win7 references. People here always give Win7 an 'okay' or 'good' just rarely a 'great' (probably because it isn't great; it's simply better than previous versions).

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35614998)

Driver support is spotty with windows too, in a different way: old hardware does not get updated drivers at the next iteration.
So you either choose among less peripherals supported by FOSS drivers or keep throwing out perfectly working stuff because it becomes impractical to use.

I hate vista because I used it for 30 minutes on a new laptop and seen my old laptop with half cores and bus length (32bit 1 core) was noticeably faster.
That vista became usable after more than a year under a different name is irrelevant, the thesis that one software house publishes what's in the interest of their customers is untenable. You want another? Oracle.
You want a debatable third? Ubuntu. But Ubuntu is FOSS so you might switch to mint, aptosid, debian without big problems.

Milo Minderbinder Solution (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612656)

I think that in return for our monetizable purchasing habit info google should pay us with google shares. That way anything that benefits google benefits us. Milo Minderbinder had it all worked out.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612930)

When I'm buying software from lets say Microsoft, I know what I will get. I know how they make their money and it is in their best interest not to lose customers faith.

Uh, that's only partially true for businesses. Microsoft has never truly given a fuck about home users, it's not even their focus. If Windows was about you and me it would be a much better operating system today.

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35613032)

"Google wants to datamine everything" Yes, it's their business.

"isn't shy to violate some privacy in the progress?"
based on what? this speculative article?

" the payment processing company only gets the total value of items."
And where you processed it. Since it ALREADY has all the data it could want about you it doesn't really need more. If it wanted it could very easily find out what you purchased.

Since I have gotten a call from my credit card company asking my if I had made a purchase from across the US, they knew everything that had been purchased. SO I suspect your assertation is incorrect.

"We, the people using Microsoft's products, are the customer"
No, we are not. Business's are. Dell, HP, best buy.
Why do you think a business can get win 7 ultimate for 50 dollars, but it cost customer 100s?

Apple is the better alternative (1)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35614976)

Apple has actually fought with (and of course won) third party vendors on the App store to protect customer privacy. It isn't just that 30% fee the vendors hate - they want your data too! Well sorry, you can't have it on iOS. In fact, one of the great selling points for the iOS ecosystem (vs Android) is you can just enter your credit card with Apple, and be able to use it for all purchases, simply by entering a password. No re-entering your info for every purchase, no privacy or data mining risks.

For all those hating on Apple for daring to ask for a cut (for, you know, shareholders) on those selling stuff on its 200 million credit card ecosystem, I can't imagine an argument you could possibly make for Google being even close on privacy issues. Don't let your Android dogma run over your Karma.

Re:Apple is the better alternative (1)

tjhart85 (1840452) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627030)

That's pretty much how the Android market works too ... Apps aren't allowed to link to their own web page to force an order (the same as they aren't on iOS). You have to confirm the order with your password & the order goes through Google Checkout without you having to enter any other information. Google also asks for a 30% cut, but the difference is that they don't FORCE you to use the Market. So, your point is pretty much complete FUD.

So it isn't (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612160)

So it isn't Big brother that you need to watch out for but Uncle CEO.

The worse part is your not even in the will.

Re:So it isn't (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612448)

So it isn't Big brother that you need to watch out for but Uncle CEO.

The worse part is your not even in the will.

I'm still trying to reconcile this with "Do no evil."

Google seem to be getting as close to doing evil as they can, without actually doing evil - like 0.99999 Evilons is just barely not 1 Evilon.

Re:So it isn't (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612492)

Big Brother can do no evil

Re:So it isn't (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612660)

Their catch phrase is a lot more ambiguous than that ("Don't be evil").

Re:So it isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612978)

They dropped the motto by the way. You should too or you look like a troll. The reason they dropped it, I think, is because of idiots like you constantly using as an argument against them. I don't give a fuck if google knows about my dick problems, because *I* know that the only reason they care is to serve me an ad that is relevant. You retards just assume it's so they can create a surveillance society or take over the world, go to your conspiracy forum and get the fuck off slashdot.

Surveillance of the kind we should really fear requires things which google simply doesn't have, like control of laws (see Patriot Act).

Re:So it isn't (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35613132)

What? I use a bunch of Google stuff and don't really worry about it. I block Google Analytics, but that is because it really drags on a slow connection.

My point was literally that "Do no evil" is an impossible standard, whereas "Don't be evil" is a lot easier to live up to. I even called it a catch phrase, instead of insisting it was a motto or whatever.

Re:So it isn't (3, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35615540)

My point was literally that "Do no evil" is an impossible standard, whereas "Don't be evil" is a lot easier to live up to. I even called it a catch phrase, instead of insisting it was a motto or whatever.

As I've pointed out a number of times before, it's neither.

See their S1 filing with the SEC. It's actually a well defined bound on their business practices which they call out to investors in order to ensure that they can bring their business practices in line with that bound and not run afoul of stockholder lawsuits.

For practical purposes, the problem with Google's "don't be evil" is that they take it as a given in everything they do, thus they engage in a broad number of practices which appear to be dangerous precursors to the abuse of public trust. It's not that they are abusing that trust, it's just that they're putting themselves in a position where they could. I think the Google experiment is a fascinating one, and I really wonder how it will play out. If they continue to gather potentially sensitive user data and continue to shepherd it with user controls and transparency, Google could potentially serve as the model on which we develop (here, in the U.S.) our analog in the data world for the financial world's concept of "fiduciary responsibility." Other countries have begun to try to formulate this on their own, but the U.S. has been highly reluctant to place such controls on data.

I'd very much like to feel as comfortable giving Google every detail of my personal data as I feel in giving my life savings to, say, Fidelity Investments. I don't worry about what Fidelity could do with that money because we have about 300 years worth of law and precedent that have worked out what a fiduciary should and should not do. With data, we're just starting to walk down that path, so paranoia isn't a bad thing. it's just that we should keep in mind that the companies that are forging that frontier are no more our enemies than a bank or other fiduciary. Those institutions can do the wrong thing (as evidenced recently) as well, but we punish them when they misuse our money, not when they file a patent for storing or transferring it.

Re:So it isn't (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35613202)

No it will get sold to insurance companies who will use it against you to charge more. It will get sold to businesses who you want to work for. They will say because of A, B, and C, and you have problems you will not be hired, we do not hire deviants. All deviants have A, B, and C you know, we just can't afford the risk of you becoming one once in our employ. They already have control of laws, it's called lobbying dumbass.

Re:So it isn't (1)

tjhart85 (1840452) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627058)

But, Google doesn't actually sell YOU to the companies. The companies give them a target demographic & Google gets ads to them.

Your information isn't going directly to the companies, unlike when you use Facebook & click 'Like' buttons all over the place. I use Facebook because it's useful, but I check my privacy settings on a weekly basis (they seem to have a way of magically changing) & generally accept the fact that nothing said on FB is secure or private in the least.

Re:So it isn't (1)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612840)

To give a really weird analogy, it's because Google is like a Pikachu, it can be level 99, but still not be a Raichu. It's need a thunderstone to evolve.

The "thunderstone" in this case needs to some pretty specific condition, like a VERY obvious breach of trust, *combined* with a large scale public condemnation.

(After all, even Nitrogen and Hydrogen will not form Ammonia until you provide high temperature AND high pressure.)

But given that according at least one evaluator[1], Google is the world's *most* valuable brand, seems like public confidence in the company is very high, and hence the chances of them facing *serious* consequences for doing "evil" is low.

Of course, this is all dependent on if Google is at 0.99999 Evilons, as you put it. They could merely be at 0.99998, and hence be much less evil :P

[1]: http://brandirectory.com/global_500_2011.html [brandirectory.com]

Re:So it isn't (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612968)

What evil? some one says Google has a lot of data therefore may, some day, possible, do something people don't like with it... or not.

Yeah, evil.

Re:So it isn't (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#35617548)

I think the gist of this was that Google is digging for data that isn't normally allowed for transactions. Google is in the business of mining data and profiting off of it. It becomes dangerous when they start expecting such concessions without people realizing the risks involved. I've become more hesitant to use their services over the last year due to stories like these. At some point they have to at least be making people nervous with the various online activities. they end up collecting information for.

Part of my fear is that they have the tech community so enamored of them that they tend to gloss over or overlook something that would raise a firestorm if someone else did it like Microsoft or Apple. Search info, email accounts, calendars, chat, authentication services for various websites. All of these leave a huge fingerprint especially when you are logging in via your Google accounts to use them. All in the hands of a single company who profits off of such data.

To claim these worries make one paranoid as many are often doing on /. while ignoring the risk just seems foolish. Although Google may not have crossed the line into 'evil', they could easily do so without anyone being the wiser. They may be doing so today. It should raise alarms and caution when someone brings up such stories rather than scorn for the poster, assuming it's a reasoned argument.

Re:So it isn't (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35615108)

So it isn't Big brother that you need to watch out for but Uncle CEO.

The worse part is your not even in the will.

I'm still trying to reconcile this with "Do no evil."

Rather than just throwing out "Google evil Big Brother 1984 OMGBBQWTF!?!!" why don't we read TFA:

"rumors have some more tangible back-up in the form of a patent application ..."

What this means is that Google has applied for a patent. Not surprisingly, their business strategy isn't strongly present in this application. That said, let's continue:

Payment systems generally [receive] from the merchant the authorization request for the total payment. Customers are not directly involved.

Under the system described in this filing, all information goes through the customer’s device to the broker, which now can keep a running tab of everything the person charges.

This is all based on the assumption that the patent describes an exact 1:1 mapping to the business model that Google plans to employ, and it also assumes that Google is the broker, and it also assumes that transactional details as presented to the device and the broker are the sort that would identify the details of the underlying purchase/service... all of these assumptions are being based on a patent.

It's time to put the swords down and stop calling the state department about that no-fly zone over Mountain View. This is just a speculative blog post by someone who should probably know better.

Re:So it isn't (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35613604)

However, Uncle CEO will give Big Brother the data at any time and will also expel from the Uncle CEO community any people that Big Brother doesn't like if Big Brother wishes so. So Big Brother will remain in charge.

surveillance society (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612184)

Is it really a "surveillance society" if we as an individual like to have our personal data at our fingertips?

I would love it if we could have things like receipts digitalized so that I can see my trends/habits. Also I hate paper receipts.

Saying a voluntary mobile payment plan is turning us into a "surveillance society", feels like "surveillance" would mean trying to criminalize us which currently doesn't seem to be Google's goal.

Re:surveillance society (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612396)

I have no clue where your conclusions came from. Digitalized receipts? The point I got was Google's aim is intercepting more information in the typical transaction, which they will no doubt surrender to the government at the mildest accusation or repackage as customer profiling data for other merchants.

Re:surveillance society (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612598)

I currently view these YRO stories as pieces in a game, and games Like combos. Try the combo of this purchase system with Microsoft's neat new proposed law that anyone who purchases something which had a pirated copy of software anywhere in the supply chain can be sued. Or mate it with Microsoft's patent-applied "Database of Blackmail Details".

And for the crew that hope that securing communications is enough, I'm pretty sure that the items are presented on unique trackable webpages, so your choice of any 12 of the 400 companies in Ghostery are going to get a back end link to Google's system and create their own versions of the data, so even if you trust Google and barely trust Microsoft, I certainly don't trust third tier derivative tracking companies.

For all of you Magic the Gathering fans (though I retired) , I'm pretty sure we can start making a Black-Blue-Red symbolic deck out of all this stuff. Deity help my bank account if Wizards created a new set with actual news stories, because their attention to detail accuracy is desperately needed vs the faltering news reportage lately.

Trade-offs (1)

Khoa (935586) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612194)

Want greatest privacy? Use cash. Want to give up privacy for the convenience? Use mobile payment. And, if we know Google well enough, they'll most likely let you track your spendings in neat little infographics. Obviously if you don't want your wife to know you bought a Fleshlight then don't use a credit card. But for mundane payments like a burger at McD, why the he'll not?

Re:Trade-offs (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612458)

Good luck with that. Governments and corporations are working toward enforcing a cashless society with every passing year. There are places in meat-space where you can't even buy things with cash. There are places where buying big items in cash will get you investigated. Having large amount of cash (a few thousand) on your person can get you "reasonable suspicion" as a criminal.

Re:Trade-offs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612586)

Not to argue your larger point, but.. "There are places in meat-space where you can't even buy things with cash." ? Which places? At least in the US, banknotes come with the promise: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". There's nothing in there that says "..unless the vendor chooses not to accept it.", and any such vendor is not in compliance with the law if he tries to argue otherwise.

 

Re:Trade-offs (2)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612620)

Try that at a Car Rental place. See how far it gets you.

Spoilers- you'll get arrested and fined before they do.

Re:Trade-offs (1)

tjhart85 (1840452) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627080)

I'm sure if you offered to give them collateral for the full value of the car they might change their minds.

Re:Trade-offs (1)

MorderVonAllem (931645) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612784)

only debts, this would apply to stuff like eating at a restaurant or using something and paying afterward. If you haven't used it, you haven't created a debt and therefore cash can be refused.

Re:Trade-offs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612810)

Cash is valid for all debts, but it has been ruled that a debt has not been created prior to a retail transaction (which makes sense). So, retailers can refuse cash all they want. The most common place I see this is for food on airline flights. Alaska Airlines now only takes credit and debit cards, not cash.

Re:Trade-offs (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35613040)

Well, the most obvious example would be the Apple Store. Have you ever tried to pay cash for items, there? I bought my mom an iMac for mother's day last year when I was visiting home and they required a credit card. The time before that, I bought two 30" ACDs, an iPod, and two laptops. Was going to pay in cash. They would only take a credit card. As far as I know, that is a company-wide policy (based on my experiences and experiences I've read over the internet -- it is possible that I am completely incorrect on that issue, though). I do recall that they wouldn't sell anyone an iPad on cash, too.

In places that do accept cash, you'll often find that they give you more of a benefit to pay with a credit card than if you pay in cash. That seems backwards, of course. If I pay in cash, you should maybe even give me a discount (that's what places used to do). Especially since using a credit card incurs an extra cost on them for the transaction fee.

When it comes down to it, you can be refused service for any reason. If I already have an ongoing business relationship with them, I'm pretty sure they have to accept payment on my invoice in cash (unless I've signed something indicating I'd pay only in another form). However, if I walk into your place and say "Here's $5,000 and I want to buy that thing over there", I'm pretty sure they can just tell me to go away.

Hell, I'm pretty sure that credit card company policies (for VISA, at least) state that you can not be required to show your identification when making a purchase. That as long as your card is signed on the back, you can not be refused service with it for not showing other forms of ID. They even tell you to call their 800 number and report a vendor if they won't accept it under those condition. However, try and actually do that in real life. You won't get anywhere.

Re:Trade-offs (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612514)

Alas there is a tendency for real shops to stop supporting anything special. "But it online" is the answer to any question for a retailer nowadays. And if you buy it online, usually you will have to use some sort of electronic payment. In the Netherlands, this was taken up by banks by setting up "iDeal", which was sold to be convenient but was really introduced because the conditions transferred all the responsibilities to the buyer. So there you have it. Shops don't sell it, and on the net you're screwed.

Re:Trade-offs (1)

praetorian20 (1723296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612596)

Want greatest privacy? Use cash.

There was an article on /. about a month or two ago that said some government was experimenting embedding RFID tags in bank notes. So much for cash transactions being private!

Re:Trade-offs (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612818)

At least you can track your money with Google Earth now!

Re:Trade-offs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612980)

> Want greatest privacy? Use cash.

Or at least, don't use this thing.

Everyone has the right to decide for themselves how much privacy they want. If they don't care, they are free to give theirs away. It doesn't mean that I have to.

Re:Trade-offs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35613044)

Want greatest privacy? Use cash.

Great idea. What do you do when you want to buy things that aren't available locally?

Re:Trade-offs (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35613686)

Great, pragmatic reasoning. Makes perfect sense. Let's also tie the ownership of cars to voting republican. If you still want to vote for the democrats, feel free not to buy a car. Nobody forces you to have a car. Also, books should only be distributed by Google, who will require you to sign into your Google account before obtaining a book. If you don't want to use Google, no problem---just don't read any books. Nobody forces you to read books.

Ode to Slashdot, a Haiku (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612246)

Top rated comments, print, 2 copies
Big white ring
Little brown ring
centered
a log slides out
splash, bullseye
a pucker, startled
Top rated comments, wipe wipe
Ah relief

Re:Ode to Slashdot, a Haiku (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612532)

That's not a haiku.

This message brought to you by the Foundation for Troll Education.

Re:Ode to Slashdot, a Haiku (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612690)

That's not a haiku.

Do not feed the troll.
The battle is all uphill.
Snow melts in spring.

What? The author does not understand how it works. (3, Interesting)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612284)

I hate to break it to everyone but the last time I ran an online store the Merchant Account processors required that I submit everything. The persons info, CC# ISV, list of items being purchased, etc. I was running a lab supply company and the Merchant Account processor would review my sales every month and cut off my ability to process CC's. Seems that Petri dishes, syringes, and beakers are considered "Drug Paraphernalia" and if they see them they cut you off. In a 1 year time I went through 4 Merchant providers and the only suggestion that was given was to shutdown the online site and publish catalogs and do mail order only as that processing does not require you to submit the items being purchased. Needless to say, I shutdown the company. I dont trust the CC processors (Merchant account processors) There needs to be something done about them.

Re:What? The author does not understand how it wor (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612482)

Maybe you need to diversify -

Anon-Admin Company DBA "Lab Supply Co" and "Kitchen Ware Inc"
item catalog_a catalog_b
0001 petridish saucer
0002 syringe baster
0003 beaker teacup
etc...

The CC processor shouldn't have any problem with stock item 0002, if they only see catalog_b, right?

Re:What? The author does not understand how it wor (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35613166)

I suggest you look up wire fraud.

Re:What? The author does not understand how it wor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35613636)

who would be defrauded in that scenario? customer buys item3, CC processor keeps their cut, vendor gets credit for item3, everyone is happy. Who cares what item3 is, it is item3.

Re:What? The author does not understand how it wor (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612520)

There needs to be something done about them.

Yes, demand legalization of "Drug Paraphernalia", and drugs, for that matter. If you don't, it will only get worse. Don't enable them.

Re:What? The author does not understand how it wor (1)

Cytotoxic (245301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35615696)

I'm with you! I can't figure out how a shape can be illegal anyway. Tommy Chong got arrested for selling bongs, which are essentially blown glass vases with a stem in the bottom. How in the world a particular shape of glass tube can be illegal is beyond me.

Same goes for shapes molded in latex. No clue in this world as to how you could rule a molded piece of rubber as obscene and therefore illegal.

Nannies of every stripe need to get over themselves and let other people govern their own lives. If you are really interested in what the negative consequences of banning drugs look like, just head to the US/Mexico border. 50k dead in the drug war there - 100% attributable to prohibition.

Re:What? The author does not understand how it wor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612538)

I hate to break it to everyone but the last time I ran an online store the Merchant Account processors required that I submit everything. The persons info, CC# ISV, list of items being purchased, etc. I was running a lab supply company and the Merchant Account processor would review my sales every month and cut off my ability to process CC's. Seems that Petri dishes, syringes, and beakers are considered "Drug Paraphernalia" and if they see them they cut you off. In a 1 year time I went through 4 Merchant providers and the only suggestion that was given was to shutdown the online site and publish catalogs and do mail order only as that processing does not require you to submit the items being purchased. Needless to say, I shutdown the company. I dont trust the CC processors (Merchant account processors) There needs to be something done about them.

Not to mention card issuers _already_ mine your transactions for targeted advertising purposes.
Here's one service that does this. http://www.cardlytics.com/

I just wanted to get that out there before people think what Google is looking at is new. Good, bad, IDK. But not new.
I assume it carries the same excuses as any other targeted advertising... it's good for consumers because the ads suck less?

Re:What? The author does not understand how it wor (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612720)

Have tried Square [squareup.com] ?

Re:What? The author does not understand how it wor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35621724)

You might be confusing Merchant Account with the people who do your CC processing. The API we use (Authorize.net) to run the transaction most definitely does not require you to submit a detailed item list, just the price.

We also don't have to submit any invoice number to detailed shipping list papers to our bank where we have our merchant account.

Sooooo, maybe you didn't do enough business to get an account that didn't give you crap about selling stuff.

Re:What? The author does not understand how it wor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35622882)

I'm not sure how long ago you used that payment processor, but that's definitely not the case anymore. Two of the popular 3rd party payment gateways, Authorize.Net and PayPal Payflow Pro, will only require at minimum billing information to be submitted. Other gateways that I've come across provided by the processor are pretty much the same. They allow you to submit an order ID and/or description and shipping information, but I've only seen one or two that take itemized products. All of which is optional.

Repeat after me: (3, Informative)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612486)

"A patent isn't a product."

Patents have only one power. To prevent others from using what you patented. You don't have to do it. You might not want to. You might not be able to. So why file for a patent on something you'll never use?

Strategy. If you figure out two good ways to make something, but one is slightly better than the other, you patent both. But you're not going to bother making something the less desirable way, you just don't want a competitor to either. Or maybe for moral reasons, you don't want anyone to do it (lobotomy ray gun, whatever).

Or maybe you can't do what you patented for practical reasons. Patent interference, market conditions, the law (i.e. bald eagle killing machine).

If and when Google actually implements the patent everyone is commenting on, then you can worry. Until then, a patent isn't a product. It's just an idea on a piece of paper.

Re:Repeat after me: (2)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35615978)

If and when Google actually implements the patent everyone is commenting on, then you can worry. Until then, a patent isn't a product. It's just an idea on a piece of paper.

More than that, the patent is a piece of paper that PREVENTS other people from doing this. Patenting evil ideas is actually a pretty clever way of making sure those ideas are never implemented (not that I place all that much faith in Google).

Re:Repeat after me: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35617302)

You cannot patent an idea (per se). [patentlawportal.com]

And another note, the real purpose of patents is not to stop others from doing something, thats just how the patents are abused in our broken system.

"The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

Closer to a transparent society (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612496)

The way I see it, the temptation of 'big data' is leading businesses to draw us closer to a transparent society. I, personally, would prefer to live in a world where every public official's voting record is on display, dating back to their first local government position, correlated with their publicly-voiced positions on the issues. I'd like to see insurance companies charge more to drivers who take their cars to neighbor Bubba's barn for repairs, and (by regulation, if necessary) charge less to people who usually take their cars to well-qualified reputable mechanics. I'd like to see mechanics' reputations be based on how many of their repairs fail. I'd like to have a society where every company and individual can have access to the information that's relevant to them.

If there's less chance of a company being screwed over by any random person, then there's less chance of a company screwing over any random customer, including myself. I'm perfectly fine enforcing that by industry regulation, but the information has to come first. If the price of such idealism is that I can't lie to my doctor anymore, so be it.

Online Voting Records (1)

ikarous (1230832) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612874)

The way I see it, the temptation of 'big data' is leading businesses to draw us closer to a transparent society. I, personally, would prefer to live in a world where every public official's voting record is on display, dating back to their first local government position, correlated with their publicly-voiced positions on the issues.

While it's not quite as comprehensive as what you suggest, see http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm [ontheissues.org]

Re:Closer to a transparent society (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612946)

Why should I get charged more becaseu I go to a private non franchised mechanic? That's insane. What about repairing my own car?

"If there's less chance of a company being screwed over by any random person, then there's less chance of a company screwing over any random customer, "
That is counter to all evidence and history.

Companies where screwing over people and employees well before they could be sued.
I think half the problem in the country is people don't bother to understand the history behind why we do things.

The price of you idealism means you may not get hired because you have a light increase in the risk of cancer, or you do something the some company finds 'offensive'.

Re:Closer to a transparent society (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35617194)

Going to a private, non-franchised mechanic with no record of doing credible work means the insurance company's taking a bigger risk by insuring you. After all, that's the historical purpose of insurance companies: to mitigate financial risk by taking small payments from many people to cover the large cost incurred by a few. If you're contributing more to the total risk, you should contribute more to the pool as well. Right now, it's an imperfect system. There's no way for the insurance companies to know if you're taking good care of your car, or if you're the kind of driver who only changes his tires after they're completely bald. Without that information, everyone's premiums go up to cover the risk of a bad tire causing a crash. You speak of history, and I simply want to make a more complete personal history available to everyone.

Of course, companies are looking to make a profit. Few employees or executives (as a general rule) are willing to sacrifice the company to make a quick profit, so the key aspect is giving companies enough information that they can screw over only the people who deserve it. If you have an increased risk of cancer, and you're being considered to be an astronaut destined for Mars, it makes perfect sense for you to be rejected, because you might not be able to do the job. If you've been an outspoken activist against animal testing, and you're applying to be a night janitor at an animal testing lab, there's an obvious security risk that the company should know about. Imagine any situation where someone's hidden actions are detrimental to the population, and there's a good chance that analysis of Big Data can fix the problem.

The reverse is also true. Insurance companies already lower premiums for drivers with decent records and displays of responsible behavior, and that's fueled primarily by heavy competition. More available information means more ways to compete with each other, and I expect the current discounting trend to continue. History shows that consumers benefit from competition, and competition benefits from having more options available to the competitors.

Yes, there's potential for abuse. That should be expected and anticipated, and regulated as soon as possible. The companies are generally happy, because they would get to raise prices for (or simply drop) customers that cut heavily into their profits, where before there was no way to predict which customers those were. Most consumers can be happy with regulated costs, with more mistakes necessary to be put into the "bad customer" class. The only ones who get screwed are those who have been deceitfully screwing over others for decades.

Call me selfish if you like, but I'm particularly opposed to the idea that someone is naturally entitled to a having a job, or lying to get a better deal.

Re:Closer to a transparent society (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35613064)

I'd like to have a society where every company and individual can have access to the information that's relevant to them.

I'd like Santa to be real, too. That doesn't mean it's ever going to happen. It's only going to happen one-way, i.e. your data will be available to corporations and governments. None of their data will be available to you.

One-way mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35614310)

The way I see it, the temptation of 'big data' is leading businesses to draw us closer to a transparent society. I, personally, would prefer to live in a world where every public official's voting record is on display, dating back to their first local government position, correlated with their publicly-voiced positions on the issues.

The only transparency this is likely to bring is a one-way mirror. The rich and powerful can see everything you do, but every attempt to see what the powerful do will be reflected by "respect for privacy". If there were a chance it would bring real accountability to governments and corporations, then perhaps it could be a helpful thing. There is no chance it would.

stallman nominated for review of fake math/science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35612670)

(Score:?)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 25, @12:23PM
the objections being raised by the neogods.biz.gov include; he will end requiring almost everything will be 'free' (as in no 'middle man', hostage scenario usury etc...). they're also up in arms about his privacy notions.

Yes, it's coming (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35612902)

Don't spend energy fighting it that could otherwise go towards getting laws to protect us from abuse.

Author isn't familiar with credit card billing (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35613264)

Shades of privacy concerns, to say nothing of jealousy on the part of established payment system companies that would love to collect such valuable information.

What the author doesn't seem to know is that credit card transactions are itemized. Even if one's bill is just a summary transaction statement, one can request and receive an itemized bill from one's credit card service that will show every item purchased. "Established payment system companies" already collect and keep on record this "valuable information". They have been doing it for as long as they have existed to investigate and prevent fraud.

pay-goo? goo-pal? who's fake math used? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35613674)

some are saying there should be no usury fees foistered on folks conducting real business, & banks/brokers are already overpaid by themselves & secret.gov deals/subsidies/tax breaks/theft/deception, the usual etc..., so raping us every day is not really required, but amusing to them, & keeps us in our place, which is poor.

If it works anything like Google Checkout (1)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | more than 3 years ago | (#35616906)

I'm sure your account will be disabled with no appeal or explanation after putting your first transaction through.

Privacy bulls*** (1)

ashwinsawant (1940290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35619850)

I have voluntarily provided my information to google in return for its services and I don't care what you guys think about it. The government takes our DNA at police stations, fingerprints and nude images at the airports (besides all data on paper), giving us nothing in return. I would be happy to have a mobile payment option provided by the same company I already deal with on a daily basis. If it doesn't work well, I'll try something else...

valuable property (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35658040)

Looks like Google is on its way to obtaining another very valuable patent [washingtonpost.com] . Expect a slew of patent infringement suits to follow -- this is probably part of the battleground of the next round of mobile patent wars.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?