Pushing them to NEED to use a profit driven banking system. Forcing them to be tracked. To have data mined and sold. To rely on “too big to fail” banking systems that practically schedule economic downturns every 20 years or so.
Ah, remembering the surprise of upset people when they did not raise a suspect in front of bank clerks telling you "It's contactless, limited risk, 25u per transaction" (and already then the child-basic retort is "Times by how many transactions?"), and then were reached by the bank information that "owing to progress the limit is now raised to 50u / 100u / 150u ..."
If you're talking about fees I thought those were capped a while ago and haven't increased.
(Certainly not me: I will not accept embedded fixed NFC - not in documents, not in bank cards, not in general.)
Yes. I will rephrase: people were told, "Here are the details of the system: if anything goes wrong, it can only be for 25u". Some people trusted that as a fixed contract. Then, some received the (expectable) communications that the formerly established limit will change. Depending on the country and system, some doubled, some were raised to 150u (if I remember well), with promises to arrive soon at 500u (if I remember well).
Other details are not different in nature: if the PSD2 imposed that the via-PIN "signature" has to be provided every 5 transactions, that does not mean that at a later stage this will not be modified to 500.
The point is: if it is intrinsic to the system that the configuration can be globally changed, expect it.
About the logic: you have to foresee them "slopes", when you see they /are/ "slippery". The fallacy is in assuming the future. It is on the opposite _duly_ to consider the chances.
Also is "u" standing for a specific currency, or what?
Profit driven, but available literally for free for an account and transfers (depending on the bank).
> To have data mined and sold.
GDPR says no.
> To rely on “too big to fail” banking systems that practically schedule economic downturns every 20 years or so.
We're talking about the EU here, not the US. There are a ton of challenger new banks.
GDPR isn't infallible. The EU and its individual countries have plenty of controversies.
>ton of challenger new banks.
Ton is a gross overstatement. It's a few that are truly independent from anyone else. The remainder are puppet / daughter banks.
Their existence barely influences the status quo and it certainly doesn't prevent outrage whenever banks used by over half the country's population threaten to fall.
So not for free. It would be one thing if banks had to guarantee those transactions being free but many banks want % of transaction in fees
Source ?
"To have data mined and sold."
Which is completely illegal according to GDPR.