Sound-Based System Promises Chipless Phone Payment 186
CWmike writes "While near-field communication gradually emerges to turn mobile phones into payment devices, startup Naratte is introducing a system it claims can do roughly the same thing without adding a chip to the handset. On Monday, Naratte introduced Zoosh, a technology that lets phones exchange transaction information via inaudible sound waves. As with NFC, the phone user would just put the phone near to a point-of-sale terminal to redeem a coupon or make a purchase. NFC provides short-range radio communication between phones and point-of-sale devices so users can just tap or point their phones at the device to make a purchase. NFC uses specialized chips, which are already built into a few phones such as the Google Nexus S sold by Sprint Nextel, and are expected in more handsets in the future. Zoosh involves software that utilizes the speaker and microphone in a handset to send and receive audio signals with another device, similar to the way early modems exchange data by sending tones through the handsets of desk phones cradled in coupler devices. The company has posted a video that shows how it works. Between this and barcodes (which Starbucks says is working well already, thank you very much), is NFC already irrelevant?"
Re:I completely refuse (Score:4, Interesting)
See, I used to think that, but it's the other side that makes it true. Certainly any agreement could say that if someone uses my PIN, I wouldn't be responsible. They don't, but they could, but they don't. And you can flip that any way you like. But a signature is different. A signature isn't a part of my agreement. A signature is a legal device.
The primary reason that my credit account can't charge me for fraudulent charges is because I never agreed to those charges. And in today's legal world, the only reason that I need to pay my credit card bill is because every restaurant has me sign a piece of that says "I agree to pay above total amount in accordance with card issuer's agreement".
It's not the account agreement; it's the law, and the concept of a signature as a binding contract. A PIN is based on the idea that no one else knows my PIN. A signature is based on the idea that no one else can bind me to a contract. The day that the law changes, and says that using someone else's PIN is criminal, then I'll be happy. But right now, you're allowed to use someone else's PIN. That's not illegal. It's illegal to steal, but that doesn't stop my having to pay my credit card bill. Contrast that with the idea that it was always illegal to sign someone else's name, even with their permission and consent. You simply aren't allow to sign someone else's signature, under any circumstance, for any reason whatsoever.
So that's the reason that I say it's a problem with the technology. The technology failed to consider the legal ramifications of such a change. To say that it's not the technology's fault is like playing football during during recess (do they still have recess?) and calling interference when the ball hits a tree. That's not interference, the tree was there before you threw the ball.