Jörg Lorenz, 2024-05-05 16:32:

> On 05.05.24 15:53, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-05-04 16:46:
>>
>>> On 04.05.24 01:29, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>>> Any preferences here - and why?
>>>
>>> I do not use any of them and I also do not use Apple Pay.
>>
>> Apple is off-topic here.
>
> It is very much on topic in this context. Are you trying to be
> destructive at any price?

No, this newsgroup is "comp.mobile.android". So it is about *Android*.
And if some asks if people use one of two payment apps for *Android* the
reply that you use Apple Pay is completely off-topic here.

It's like if someone asks about programs in Windows in a windows
newsgroup and you would then explain what programs you use in your mac
instead because you don't use Windows at all.

>>> 1) I do not see any added value
>>> 2) I do not want tech companies in the financial sector in any way
>>
>> Why do you use a payment app then at all?
>
> You are not able to reflect on what I wrote. Credit Card and Debit Card
> companies as well as banks and other institutions are regulated and
> watched. Tech companies are not. They are just an additional risk to the
> system.

You wrote that you use Apple pay and that you don't want tech companies
financial sector in any way.

Well - Apple *is* a tech company and Apple Pay *is* an involvement in
the financial sector.

> But these are categories that are beyond your knowledge as you proved in
> the German-speaking groups to a great extent and your question proves it
> as well.

Look in the mirror!

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 5/3/24 19:29, Jim the Geordie wrote:
> Any preferences here - and why?

Cash?

VanguardLH wrote:

> Haven't eaten out much, have you. The vast majority of restaurants I
> visit bring you a padded wallet with the tab sheet inside. You put your
> card in the wallet. The waiter comes back from there terminal with the
> actual bill inside the wallet (2 copies: 1 for restaurant, 1 for your
> copy). The bill has already been registered at their terminal, but you
> still need to add a tip, and sign the bill.

Sign? I haven't needed to sign for a card transaction in decades ...

Arno Welzel, 2024-05-06 10:19:

> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-05-05 16:32:
>
>> On 05.05.24 15:53, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-05-04 16:46:
>>>
>>>> On 04.05.24 01:29, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>>>> Any preferences here - and why?
>>>>
>>>> I do not use any of them and I also do not use Apple Pay.
>>>
>>> Apple is off-topic here.
>>
>> It is very much on topic in this context. Are you trying to be
>> destructive at any price?
>
> No, this newsgroup is "comp.mobile.android". So it is about *Android*.
> And if some asks if people use one of two payment apps for *Android* the
> reply that you use Apple Pay is completely off-topic here.
>
> It's like if someone asks about programs in Windows in a windows
> newsgroup and you would then explain what programs you use in your mac
> instead because you don't use Windows at all.
>
>>>> 1) I do not see any added value
>>>> 2) I do not want tech companies in the financial sector in any way
>>>
>>> Why do you use a payment app then at all?
>>
>> You are not able to reflect on what I wrote. Credit Card and Debit Card
>> companies as well as banks and other institutions are regulated and
>> watched. Tech companies are not. They are just an additional risk to the
>> system.
>
> You wrote that you use Apple pay and that you don't want tech companies
> financial sector in any way.
>
> Well - Apple *is* a tech company and Apple Pay *is* an involvement in
> the financial sector.
>
>> But these are categories that are beyond your knowledge as you proved in
>> the German-speaking groups to a great extent and your question proves it
>> as well.
>
> Look in the mirror!

In addition: I did not see the "not" in "I also do not use Apple Pay."
since your usual responses to such questions are that Apple is better
and therefore you use Apple products.

So just a misunderstanding - mea culpa.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 2024-05-06 13:45, bad sector wrote:
> On 5/3/24 19:29, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>> Any preferences here - and why?
>
> Cash?

Cash transactions above 1000 euros are prohibited here.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 07.05.24 09:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-05-06 13:45, bad sector wrote:
>> On 5/3/24 19:29, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>> Any preferences here - and why?
>>
>> Cash?
>
> Cash transactions above 1000 euros are prohibited here.

Deep State? *ROTFLSTC*

--
"Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)

Jörg Lorenz, 2024-05-07 16:01:

> On 07.05.24 09:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-05-06 13:45, bad sector wrote:
>>> On 5/3/24 19:29, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>>> Any preferences here - and why?
>>>
>>> Cash?
>>
>> Cash transactions above 1000 euros are prohibited here.
>
> Deep State? *ROTFLSTC*

Well - even in Switzerland there is a limit for anonymous cash
transactions, not as low as 1000 EUR, but a limit exists and this will
even be lowered soon:

<https://www.thebanker.com/Banks-under-increased-scrutiny-as-Switzerland-proposes-AML-reform-1699263768>

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 5/7/24 03:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-05-06 13:45, bad sector wrote:
>> On 5/3/24 19:29, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>> Any preferences here - and why?
>>
>> Cash?
>
> Cash transactions above 1000 euros are prohibited here.

It's only a start, the neonobility will do away with cash altogether,
tightening the screws one at a time until everyone rents even the air
they breathe, no capital payments either, just perpetual interest.
Canada did away with $1000 bills supposedly to fence-in the drug dealers
but concurrently we're legalizing just about all hard drugs. It's all a
farce and an insult, now all the politicians getting paid off by
blackrock are geting suitcases full of US 1000 bills instead.

But if I want to buy a few 10 gal cans of survival food it will not be
sold for cash or anon but be logged so that the minute I need it someone
will be at my door to shoot us for it.

Data denial is the name of the game or should be, too bad that the plebs
is mortally stupid, I agree that cash *is* doomed.

In article <MPG.40a01ed34f6ff8e098970b@paganini.bofh.team>,
Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes I have a Samsung or I wouldn't have asked and yes I have NFC.
>
> I simply wondered whether the physical action of paying is simpler with
> one or are they both the same.
> The question arises because I often get asked (by a bloody machine!) to
> try my fingerprint again when it had already accepted it 5 seconds
> earlir. Grr.

I noticed this annoying feature which started relatively recently with Google Pay.

After doing some research, I found that Google made an update a couple of
months ago, such that every transaction requires that you have been
biometrically validated within the last few minutes. On my phone (Xiaomi),
Face Unlock is no longer considered sufficient, but fingerprint is. So if I
unlock with face recognition and then try to tap on a pay terminal, it fails,
then asks me for my fingerprint, then tries to pay again, hopefully with
success. Some terminals will need the retailer to reset the transaction before
you can retry.

There are two workarounds that I found:

1. Turn off face unlock, so that I always needed to use fingerprint to unlock.
I tried this for a while, but it lost a lot of convenience in day-to-day use
of the phone.

2. When about to pay for something, open the Google Wallet app, and look above
your card image for a box that says "For your security, you need to verify
that it's you before paying." with a blue link "Verify that it's you". Tap on
the link just before trying to pay, enter your fingerprint, and then tap the
phone on the pay terminal. The box will disappear and the payment should then
work first time. There is a timeout of two or three minutes (I haven't timed
it, but it's not as short as "5 seconds") before the app will ask again for
you to verify. OK, this is more steps than just unlock and pay, but this is
the procedure I now use, as paying for something is much less frequent than
needing just to unlock my phone, and there is time to open the app while the
retailer is entering the transaction.

Hope this helps
Tony

--
Tony Mountifield
Winchester, UK

Bob Henson <bob.henson@outlook.com> writes:

> The ability to pay by smartwatch is very handy - I use it nearly all
> the time.

I don't know, I haven't done that much since some early trials. With my
Garmin watch I usually have to twist my hand uncomfortably to get the
watch on the pay terminal. Maybe if I wore my watch on the inside of my
wrist I'd think of it as handy.

But maybe it's more convenient with other smartwatches?

In article <v1dn2p$pp8$1@softins.softins.co.uk>, tony@mountifield.org
says...
>
> In article <MPG.40a01ed34f6ff8e098970b@paganini.bofh.team>,
> Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
> > Yes I have a Samsung or I wouldn't have asked and yes I have NFC.
> >
> > I simply wondered whether the physical action of paying is simpler with
> > one or are they both the same.
> > The question arises because I often get asked (by a bloody machine!) to
> > try my fingerprint again when it had already accepted it 5 seconds
> > earlir. Grr.
>
> I noticed this annoying feature which started relatively recently with Google Pay.
>
> After doing some research, I found that Google made an update a couple of
> months ago, such that every transaction requires that you have been
> biometrically validated within the last few minutes. On my phone (Xiaomi),
> Face Unlock is no longer considered sufficient, but fingerprint is. So if I
> unlock with face recognition and then try to tap on a pay terminal, it fails,
> then asks me for my fingerprint, then tries to pay again, hopefully with
> success. Some terminals will need the retailer to reset the transaction before
> you can retry.
>
> There are two workarounds that I found:
>
> 1. Turn off face unlock, so that I always needed to use fingerprint to unlock.
> I tried this for a while, but it lost a lot of convenience in day-to-day use
> of the phone.
>
> 2. When about to pay for something, open the Google Wallet app, and look above
> your card image for a box that says "For your security, you need to verify
> that it's you before paying." with a blue link "Verify that it's you". Tap on
> the link just before trying to pay, enter your fingerprint, and then tap the
> phone on the pay terminal. The box will disappear and the payment should then
> work first time. There is a timeout of two or three minutes (I haven't timed
> it, but it's not as short as "5 seconds") before the app will ask again for
> you to verify. OK, this is more steps than just unlock and pay, but this is
> the procedure I now use, as paying for something is much less frequent than
> needing just to unlock my phone, and there is time to open the app while the
> retailer is entering the transaction.
>
> Hope this helps
> Tony

Thanks Tony. Nice to have someone answering my question without raising
the moral question of cash vs card/phone.
After a bit of experimentation I find the Samsung Wallet easier to use.
It always asks for fingerprint. Google offers options.

--
Jim the Geordie

On 5/3/2024 9:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/3/24 4:29 PM, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>> Any preferences here - and why?
>
> I have often wondered about the value of any of these.  What's wrong
> with a credit card which gives you a rebate?

One reason for me is that I have a credit card that gives 3% cash back
for Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay. The best I have for a
physical card is 2% cash back. So we always pay with the phone when
possible (not possible at Home Depot, Lowe's, or Walmart).

On 5/8/24 8:25 AM, sms wrote:
> On 5/3/2024 9:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/3/24 4:29 PM, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>> Any preferences here - and why?
>>
>> I have often wondered about the value of any of these.  What's wrong
>> with a credit card which gives you a rebate?
>
> One reason for me is that I have a credit card that gives 3% cash back
> for Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay. The best I have for a
> physical card is 2% cash back. So we always pay with the phone when
> possible (not possible at Home Depot, Lowe's, or Walmart).

Which card is that? Going back through my old email I find that I
actually signed up for google pay with a long-defunct credit card.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Yahoo has released its own search engine. For more info,
type 'yahoo search engine' into Google." -D.Miller

On 5/8/2024 8:59 AM, The Real Bev wrote:

<snip>

> Which card is that?  Going back through my old email I find that I
> actually signed up for google pay with a long-defunct credit card.
>

US Bank Altitude Reserve. It has a net $75 annual fee ($400-$325), but,
for me, the benefits outweigh that $75.

1. 3% cash back on electronic wallet purchases (break even versus a 2%
card is $7500 per year). Or 4.5% if you purchase travel with the card.[I
have used this multiple times]

2. Primary rental car insurance, not secondary.[I have used this
multiple times]

3. Global Entry reimbursement (equivalent to $25 per year)[I have used this]

4. Priority Pass membership (8x per year) [I have used this multiple times]

5. One year extended warranty coverage (many cards have dropped this
feature, including the Costco Citibank Visa)

6. $500 sign-up bonus [I have used this and it covers nearly seven years
of the $75 net annual fee]

Plus some stuff that is pretty worthless, or that I'd be unlikely to
ever use, or hopefully not ever need to use:

7. 90 day theft and loss coverage

8. Identity theft coverage

9. Emergency evacuation coverage

10. Repatriation of remains

11. Lost luggage reimbursement

12. Trip delay reimbursement

13. Emergency travel services

14. Trip cancellation coverage

15. Travel accident insurance

On 5/8/24 11:19 PM, sms wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 8:59 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Which card is that?  Going back through my old email I find that I
>> actually signed up for google pay with a long-defunct credit card.
>>
>
> US Bank Altitude Reserve. It has a net $75 annual fee ($400-$325), but,
> for me, the benefits outweigh that $75.
>
> 1. 3% cash back on electronic wallet purchases (break even versus a 2%
> card is $7500 per year). Or 4.5% if you purchase travel with the card.[I
> have used this multiple times]
>
> 2. Primary rental car insurance, not secondary.[I have used this
> multiple times]

All cards used to offer this, but I don't think any of the ones I have
now do.

> 3. Global Entry reimbursement (equivalent to $25 per year)[I have used this]
>
> 4. Priority Pass membership (8x per year) [I have used this multiple times]
>
> 5. One year extended warranty coverage (many cards have dropped this
> feature, including the Costco Citibank Visa)

Costco still offers the second year on appliances. I was shocked to
find that Samsung only gives a single year on expensive appliances.
Cheesy, and I won't be buying a Samsung refrigerator. Or anything else.

> 6. $500 sign-up bonus [I have used this and it covers nearly seven years
> of the $75 net annual fee]

Definitely a plus.

> Plus some stuff that is pretty worthless, or that I'd be unlikely to
> ever use, or hopefully not ever need to use:
>
> 7. 90 day theft and loss coverage
>
> 8. Identity theft coverage
>
> 9. Emergency evacuation coverage
>
> 10. Repatriation of remains

Somebody else's problem!

> 11. Lost luggage reimbursement
>
> 12. Trip delay reimbursement
>
> 13. Emergency travel services
>
> 14. Trip cancellation coverage
>
> 15. Travel accident insurance

Thanks. Seems useful.

--
Cheers, Bev
Rule 18: Always tip your hat before striking a lady.

On 07.05.24 17:41, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-05-07 16:01:
>
>> On 07.05.24 09:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-06 13:45, bad sector wrote:
>>>> On 5/3/24 19:29, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>>>> Any preferences here - and why?
>>>>
>>>> Cash?
>>>
>>> Cash transactions above 1000 euros are prohibited here.
>>
>> Deep State? *ROTFLSTC*
>
> Well - even in Switzerland there is a limit for anonymous cash
> transactions, not as low as 1000 EUR, but a limit exists and this will
> even be lowered soon:
>
> <https://www.thebanker.com/Banks-under-increased-scrutiny-as-Switzerland-proposes-AML-reform-1699263768>

Not surprising you have no clue like always. You did not read the full
article, did you? It is behind a paywall.

--
"Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)

On 07.05.24 18:00, bad sector wrote:
> On 5/7/24 03:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-05-06 13:45, bad sector wrote:
>>> On 5/3/24 19:29, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>>> Any preferences here - and why?
>>>
>>> Cash?
>>
>> Cash transactions above 1000 euros are prohibited here.
>
> It's only a start, the neonobility will do away with cash altogether,
> tightening the screws one at a time until everyone rents even the air
> they breathe, no capital payments either, just perpetual interest.
> Canada did away with $1000 bills supposedly to fence-in the drug dealers
> but concurrently we're legalizing just about all hard drugs. It's all a
> farce and an insult, now all the politicians getting paid off by
> blackrock are geting suitcases full of US 1000 bills instead.
>
> But if I want to buy a few 10 gal cans of survival food it will not be
> sold for cash or anon but be logged so that the minute I need it someone
> will be at my door to shoot us for it.
>
> Data denial is the name of the game or should be, too bad that the plebs
> is mortally stupid, I agree that cash *is* doomed.

Nice subject for conspiracy theories.
Elect another government, idiot.

--
"Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)

Jörg Lorenz, 2024-05-09 16:48:

> On 07.05.24 17:41, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-05-07 16:01:
>>
>>> On 07.05.24 09:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-06 13:45, bad sector wrote:
>>>>> On 5/3/24 19:29, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>>>>> Any preferences here - and why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cash?
>>>>
>>>> Cash transactions above 1000 euros are prohibited here.
>>>
>>> Deep State? *ROTFLSTC*
>>
>> Well - even in Switzerland there is a limit for anonymous cash
>> transactions, not as low as 1000 EUR, but a limit exists and this will
>> even be lowered soon:
>>
>> <https://www.thebanker.com/Banks-under-increased-scrutiny-as-Switzerland-proposes-AML-reform-1699263768>
>
> Not surprising you have no clue like always. You did not read the full
> article, did you? It is behind a paywall.

As usual... instead of a helpful comment at least one single pointer to
the relevant information just a "you are dumb" response.

First of all: how much money you give someone else in cash is *never*
regulated as long as you are not taking the money as part of any legal
transaction like selling goods or services. A drug dealer paying someone
else to get his delivery will of course not do this using a regulated
bank account.

<https://lenews.ch/2022/07/01/swiss-debt-enforcement-offices-aiding-money-laundering/>

Quote:

"In Switzerland, banks must verify the provenance of any cash sums of
more than CHF 15,000."

So this means - as in many Euopean countries as well - you can accept
more than CH 15,000 in cash from anyone, but when you want to transfer
this money to your bank account you need to verify the provenance. And
telling the bank "I got this as a gift from a person whose name I
forgot" will not work.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 5/9/24 11:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 07.05.24 18:00, bad sector wrote:
>> On 5/7/24 03:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-06 13:45, bad sector wrote:
>>>> On 5/3/24 19:29, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>>>> Any preferences here - and why?
>>>>
>>>> Cash?
>>>
>>> Cash transactions above 1000 euros are prohibited here.
>>
>> It's only a start, the neonobility will do away with cash altogether,
>> tightening the screws one at a time until everyone rents even the air
>> they breathe, no capital payments either, just perpetual interest.
>> Canada did away with $1000 bills supposedly to fence-in the drug dealers
>> but concurrently we're legalizing just about all hard drugs. It's all a
>> farce and an insult, now all the politicians getting paid off by
>> blackrock are geting suitcases full of US 1000 bills instead.
>>
>> But if I want to buy a few 10 gal cans of survival food it will not be
>> sold for cash or anon but be logged so that the minute I need it someone
>> will be at my door to shoot us for it.
>>
>> Data denial is the name of the game or should be, too bad that the plebs
>> is mortally stupid, I agree that cash *is* doomed.
>
> Nice subject for conspiracy theories.
> Elect another government, idiot.

Same to you with knobs on it. If conspiracy theories will be the subject
then googling George Soros might help (re: perpetual interest payments).

On 10.05.24 14:04, bad💽sector wrote:
> On 5/9/24 11:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 07.05.24 18:00, bad sector wrote:
>>> Data denial is the name of the game or should be, too bad that the plebs
>>> is mortally stupid, I agree that cash *is* doomed.
>>
>> Nice subject for conspiracy theories.
>> Elect another government, idiot.
>
> Same to you with knobs on it. If conspiracy theories will be the subject
> then googling George Soros might help (re: perpetual interest payments).

QED: You are a Troll.

--
"Mille viae ducunt hominem per saecula Romam." (Alanus ab Insulis 1120-1202)

On 5/9/2024 7:40 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/8/24 11:19 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 8:59 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Which card is that?  Going back through my old email I find that I
>>> actually signed up for google pay with a long-defunct credit card.
>>>
>>
>> US Bank Altitude Reserve. It has a net $75 annual fee ($400-$325), but,
>> for me, the benefits outweigh that $75.
>>
>> 1. 3% cash back on electronic wallet purchases (break even versus a 2%
>> card is $7500 per year). Or 4.5% if you purchase travel with the card.[I
>> have used this multiple times]
>>
>> 2. Primary rental car insurance, not secondary.[I have used this
>> multiple times]
>
> All cards used to offer this, but I don't think any of the ones I have
> now do.

No, all cards used to offer secondary coverage, that is it kicked in
only after you used your own car insurance, if any.

Only a few cards offer, or offered, primary coverage.

On 5/8/2024 11:19 PM, sms wrote:

Also, one big benefit I forgot to mention, is that when you purchase
travel through their portal, you get 50% more for your "points" versus
cash. Not much of a deal for hotels, since the portal prices are higher,
but a great deal for airline tickets.

So that 3% turns into 4.5%.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 5/12/24 11:21 AM, sms wrote:
> On 5/9/2024 7:40 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 11:19 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2024 8:59 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Which card is that?  Going back through my old email I find that I
>>>> actually signed up for google pay with a long-defunct credit card.
>>>
>>> US Bank Altitude Reserve. It has a net $75 annual fee ($400-$325), but,
>>> for me, the benefits outweigh that $75.
>>>
>>> 1. 3% cash back on electronic wallet purchases (break even versus a 2%
>>> card is $7500 per year). Or 4.5% if you purchase travel with the card.[I
>>> have used this multiple times]
>>>
>>> 2. Primary rental car insurance, not secondary.[I have used this
>>> multiple times]
>>
>> All cards used to offer this, but I don't think any of the ones I have
>> now do.
>
> No, all cards used to offer secondary coverage, that is it kicked in
> only after you used your own car insurance, if any.

Since I don't carry collision (only liability and comprehensive) this
might be useful if I ever had to rent a car again.

> Only a few cards offer, or offered, primary coverage.

--
Cheers, Bev