Hacker News Reader

Comment by bayesianbot | Hacker News Reader

Thailand has a similar system - you use your banking app to scan a QR code, either the code is generated and has the amount included or it's printed static paper and you write the amount yourself, then show the receipt to the merchant or they check the notification in their phone. Started in 2017, nowadays it's everywhere, I can go to local market and pay $0.5 products with it. My 12 year old daughter opened her own account as well and didn't need my help, only installed an app and went to ATM that has a special slot for ID card to verify identity. Quite convenient as no need to carry cash anymore.

View on HN

All countries of SEA have similar systems (even Laos and Cambodia). The one managed by Malaysia now can work in Thailand, Singapore and Indonesia too. I think in the next 3-4 years, these wallets will support inter-change across all ASEAN.

The interop with banking across SEA is pretty cool now, most countries have cross border payments with nothing more than a QR code. And this is down to the hawker stall level.

It's advancing a lot quicker than you'd expect given that many of the countries aren't really that good at coordinating with each other.

why didn’t these countries go the NFC route instead of QR codes?

QR code still works when either end is low-tech (paper/wearable/sticker), by using out-of-band means (SMS/soundbox) to confirm the transaction.

Further, NFC is usually the first to be left out when manufacturers cut costs to hit lucrative price points.

Apple never implemented host card emulation (HCE) as an API, but that doesn't matter as these payment systems usually aren't backed by a payment card network, thus they'd have to build needlessly complex reconcilliation systems when transactions already debit directly from accounts, and offline usage isn't considered a major use-case.

Nfc needs a special chip qr code needs just a picture and camera. Makes a huge difference in infrastructure cost. Getting millions of shops to put in nfc terminals compared to get them to print qr codes makes adoption a lot faster

To build on the other comments, because anyone can just print up their QR code. Somchai the Tuk-Tuk driver can simply print the QR code for his personal bank account and glue it to the roof of his Tuk-Tuk and now he accepts electronic payments.

thank you all for replying. i now understand a bit better why they went the QR route.

Some sellers don't have a smartphone/screen and rely on the honesty of the user (they just ask to show them the receipt). I don't know how they manage their wallet though (maybe their kid or a friend?).

The "wallet" is just an ordinary bank account in these cases.

Spending quite some time in both Malaysia and Thailand I can say that the support for cross country payments is still not great. I’m rarely able to use my Malaysian banking app (Maybank) to pay in Thailand. Most of the times when I tried the QR code is not recognized. Which means I still need to carry cash with me all the time.

For me it was 50/50 too. But this launched very recently. Here to hoping they fix their system.

Seems like it's a good example of developing countries skipping technological nodes and ending up with better solutions. For example, most of eastern Europe was already using fiber/copper Ethernet 15-20 years ago, while most western Europe and US were stuck with crappy DSL lines.

In the payment processing sphere, we are stuck with a duopoly that charges insane fees for something that was very complex and labor intensive 50 years ago. But today - if we could start from scratch - the entire payment volume of EU can be processed on a well provisioned computing rack with a software written in less than a year by a small team. It could be offered by ECB as a free service, with strong privacy guarantees written in EU law.

Entire modes of fraud, such as credit card cloning, would cease to exist. Online payments - seamless, safe, and instantaneous, just scan a QR code.

But we cannot start from scratch because the incumbent is good enough and the rent they extract from each member of society is small enough to not motivate them to initiate a switch, even if the aggregate rent is a staggering amount that would be recouped in days of the new system going online.

But is QR Code scanning a better solution? Credit card cloning only affect the legacy magnetic strip I think?

Someone can just stick a QR code on top of the office one. [1]

[1]: https://www.straitstimes.com/tech/can-i-trust-this-qr-code-c...

These systems work with several modes, UEN (Unique entity number, Phone number, National Id Number and QR)

For in person transactions, NFC is perfect. For internet payments, a dynamically generated QR code is secure and far superior to the current setup:

  * find physical card or virtual in an app

  * copy paste or insert "secret" numbers, and trust the website won't save them, because they are static

  * insert a bunch of personal data which the merchant has no real reason to know, but that is used for "fraud detection" because they don't trust you are the real owner of the "secret" static password

  * go back to your phone and get the SMS/3dsecure validation prompt, because it turns out your bank also doesn't trust the secrecy of the "secret" numbers they issued you

  * finally, pray to the cave gods the transaction has gone trough the complex duct tape and  bubble gum contraption, is not flagged for review or reversed by the various intermediaries etc.

It's all a baroque mess, multiple layers of cruft accumulated over the decades. To compare, even a crypto transaction is much smoother and simpler, navigate to checkout, scan the QR code with your wallet app, press pay and you are done. And that's not to praise crypto, any solution designed from scratch for the age of the internet will be much better.

Imagine a zero-day in Linux kernel cleaning out bank accounts of entire continent.

I'm not entirely sure how you imagine Visa's fees protect you from Linux kernel zero days. More than likely, the unwieldy infrastructure with massive technical debt accrued over decades has a much larger attack surface and uses a myriad of more or less obsolete technology.

Also, the payment system should not be confused with the banking system. Complete control over the payment system would give the attacker the ability to deny payments or make fraudulent ones, but would not, for example, allow the attacker access to accounts not linked to a payment instrument, or allow them to circumvent the limits set on such instruments.

Already does between Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand with ISO 20022 compliant cross border fast payments.

It’s frustrating though since most foreigners can’t use the QR payment system and most places don’t take card. Thailand is the only place I need to carry cash.

I was in Lao as a tourist late last year. I was able to link the QR payment system (Loca) to my international Mastercard.

Weird as Thailand being a tourist country attaching your credit card to top up a qr code payment app should be easily available to tourists.

Quite convenient for tracking people's consumption choices and discriminating based on them.

    Hi there! We've noticed an increase of fast food purchases in the log of your account. Therefore your medical insurance premiums have risen by 200% to accomodate the change. For lessened prices, you might want to start consuming our Healthy Food(TM) lunch packs by EvilCorp, made out of bugs for the good of the environment :)

Why could this not also be done with currently used card systems?

Mostly because the systems are old, limited in the amount of data they generate.

They are definitely generating and analysing this data in the US. I believe the data protection laws in the UK and EU prevent it here, at least to the scale. There is no doubt it could be done though - it's the same basic technology with a different transport mechanism and/or intermediary.

It could, if you're paying everything with the card. But you always have an option to go to an ATM and pick up some untracable cash.

I assume these apps don't provide such an option.

It’s an option…for now.

In 2016, India demonetized bills as low as 500 Rupees (the equivalent of $6). People died in the ensuing chaos, and the Supreme Court just that ruled in favor of the demonetisation.

I agree than tracking detailed purchase data can lead to serious discrimination and inequity especially in a dictatorship. The use case in your example, however, seems fair:

* The person has a choice whether to consume fast food regularly. It’s their freedom, yes, but they should also accept the costs that come with their lifestyle choices. Similarly, if someone chooses to regularly drive at a daredevil speed, they should pay a higher premium.

* This is different than discrimination based on involuntary characteristics. If someone is born with genetic predisposition to get cancer, or happens to grow up in a city with high carcinogen level, it’s arguably a lot less fair to charge them extras.

Why should I subsidize parents who choose to raise kids in carcinogenic cities?

The data might not be available at the time. And the person did not have a choice when they were a child.

Is the above question rhetorical or do you lean more libertarian?

I don’t see their point much different from what you described in your comment.

The hubris of this is phenomenal. People have ancestral homes in places that have become carcinogenic because of industrial activity they didn't ask for, the best job opportunities are often in places that you must go to in order for your family to have the best opportunities possible.

The amount of privilege in asking this question is just shocking. As if people can so easily choose where they live. Try telling miners and nomadic construction workers that.

The whole point of health insurance is to ammortize the unpredictable costs of healthcare amongst a large number of people. If health insurance companies start discriminating ahead of time based on "predictions of disease" then the whole point of insurance falls apart.

Might as well abolish it and let everyone pay for their medical bills on their own. Which would be actually more fair than paying a "unhealthy food premium" - since you're only paying for actually getting sick, not for the prediction of whatever model the insurance company is using to predict your sickness.

I fear and loathe the future in which statistical models (of sickness, crime, etc.) determine the course of my life. I'd much rather be held responsible for my own actions and accept whatever randomness of the universe throws at me, than be a puppet of some huge statistical model created to maximize megacorporations' profits.

Accidents and health problems are not completely predictable for an individual, but the rates are for different groups of people. As long as it’s within their power to choose, they should accept the consequences that come with their choices.

If all your neighbors play extreme sports or drive drunk all the time, would you like to pay the same premium as they do in the same insurance pool?

It’s an established practice for insurance companies to use statistics to charge a higher premium for some groups, eg young male drivers, even if many in such a group have a safe lifestyle. If they use a finer grained model, then it’s more fair to people who make a safer life choice.

The profits are largely orthogonal to whether they use a coarse or fine grained statistical model, but more about the level of competition in a given market. Over time, companies using a fairer model might win over the competition, all else being equal.

> If all your neighbors play extreme sports or drive drunk all the time, would you like to pay the same premium as they do in the same insurance pool?

Yes, because choosing otherwise opens the door to discrimination based on many factors, many of which can be completely out of our control.

What if you're working a job with a non-insignificant risk of danger - should your premiums be higher? After all, you chose to work in that profession and to put the last 20 years of your life specializing in it. You should've just chosen differently...

What if you're living in a neighborhood with a high crime rate - should your premiums be higher? After all, you chose to inherit the house and live there and put the last 20 years of your life building a home and a social network there. You should've just chosen differently...

What if you're shortsighted which makes you more of a danger in traffic - should your premiums be higher? Maybe you didn't choose to be shortsighted, but you could change it with a laser surgery or whatever, and afterall, we're just following the model...

What if you're black - should your premiums be higher? Maybe you didn't choose to be black, but statistics show that black people are significantly more at risk of being victims of violent crime. And after all, we're not being racist, we're just follow the model...

Et cetera.

If you allow insurance companies to discriminate, eventually, everyone who isn't following the "safe path" will be discriminated against. At that point, the insurance stops being merely an amortization of unpredictable cost, and becomes a tool to control the population.

Let's take this a step further and make it so everyone has to pay for insurance, the insurance fee is based on income and not choices, and everyone is covered equally.

Also, since it will all be managed by the same insurance vendor, then they can negotiate better prices in the market and make the system more efficient. Of course this will have to be highly regulated in order to make it fair. We could ensure this by having the major policies be managed by officials who are accountable to the public via a voucher system -- if the official makes bad decisions they get a 'no confidence voucher' and someone else who wants the job will get a shot at it.

This system would be far from perfect, but it would probably be better than paying corporations to run it when they are incentivized to provide only enough service to meet market and legal requirements and pocket the rest -- while showing shareholders consistent profit increases, which can't be tenable.

Yes, a professional stunt pilot should pay more than someone with a 9 to 5 desk job.

Yes, someone living in a high risk of car break-ins should pay more for auto insurance.

Yes, someone living in a low-lying area next to the beach in a place known for hurricanes should pay more for flood insurance than someone living in Colorado.

What we shouldn't do is charge people more for being of a certain race or gender.

I have no problem with people getting a discount on health insurance if they wear a continuous blood monitor and show that they only eat metabolically healthy foods that don't spike their insulin and glucose levels.

I have no problem with people getting a discount on health insurance if they wear a fitness tracker and show that they get their 30 minutes a day of exercise.

> Yes, a professional stunt pilot should pay more than someone with a 9 to 5 desk job.

> Yes, someone living in a high risk of car break-ins should pay more for auto insurance.

> Yes, someone living in a low-lying area next to the beach in a place known for hurricanes should pay more for flood insurance than someone living in Colorado.

> What we shouldn't do is charge people more for being of a certain race or gender.

That's a very convenient way to contrast, but where do we draw the line?

For example, should people with genetic diseases pay more? If yes, then how is that different from discriminating race or gender (which are also part of genetics and may affect the risks)? And if not - then why not? Is the reasoning consistent with all the other scenarios you've listed?

Regardless, even if we did agree on a line in the sand, then insurance itself becomes just a class-based amortizer. Rich, fit, genetically lucky people in good neighbors collectively pay less, while the poor, unfit, genetically unlucky people in bad neighbors collectively pay more. Then you might as well not have insurance at all.

Sure, you can't control your genetics (race, gender, birth defects) but you do choose your location, occupation, eating habits and exercise habits.

There was a time when being fit required having more money, but that is increasingly not the case. You don't need to shop at Whole Foods to eat well anymore (Aldi and Trader Joes and Grocery Outlet all carry healthy foods these days).

> you do choose your location

So being born in a particular place, having your history, your inheritance and most of your social connections in it, it's all just an arbitrary choice?

> occupation

Again, having an option to work in a certain career that brings you enough money to live and feed off your family, that's just an arbitrary choice, too?

What about STDs? They may make you more prone to illnesses. You may say "well, the person has voluntarily chosen to have unprotected sex", but then what about rape victims? Should insurance companies be informed of such private details of people's lives in order to weight out whether the condition is "chosen" or not? And who the hell decides what's "chosen" and what's not?

All I'm trying to say, it's not black and white. You can't just decide to count the "things you choose" and discard "things you don't choose" as most things don't fall cleanly in those two categories, location and occupation being just one of many examples of the gray area in that continuum. And once you go down the path of price discrimination based on anything, you're on a slippery slope towards thought police.

>The person has a choice whether to consume fast food regularly. It’s their >freedom, yes, but they should also accept the costs that come with their >lifestyle choices. Similarly, if someone chooses to regularly drive at a >daredevil speed, they should pay a higher premium.

i'm scared of people that think like this. all digital transactions enables such people to mandate these ideas - the road to hell with their good intentions.

This is already a thing, but it works the other way around. Here in South Africa, the largest private short-term health insurer gives you up to 75% cash back for 'healthy food choices' [1] i.e. they effectively reduce your premiums if you signal that you make healthier choices than other people in the fund.

The law in South Africa says that short-term health insurers can't charge different people different premiums, so this is an 'add-on cashback scheme'.

They integrate with 2 big supermarket chains: when you pay with a credit card issued by the insurer's banking partner, your discounts are automatically processed on a line-by-line product level. They also integrate with a fast food chain in the same way, Nandos, and give you a discount for selecting the 'healthier' food choices on the menu.

[1] https://www.discovery.co.za/vitality/help-healthyfood-health...

Vitality has spread from SA! I was over there for a few years and used them there, but now I'm back in the UK and have their life insurance.

yes, it's a thing in places with zero consumer protection and abusive business.

absolutely nobody wants to be like us, sa or au (with brexited uk following close). those are dystopian.

also credit cards will very much NOT share your information. we have decades of privacy laws on them. that's why you have to "join" those programs. it's very much NOT the norm. and decent countries have laws against this "70% fake discount"

> This is already a thing, but it works the other way around.

Sorry for being pedantic, but charging "bad customers" $XXX and charging everyone $XXX more, whilst giving everyone but "bad customer" $XXX back, are equivalent.

Only if everyone participates. You'll generally have a third group of "unknown behavior customers". Then it makes a difference what the default price is.

Buy healthy with card. Fags, booze and McD's in cash. Or, a different card.

The point is that many countries and systems across the world are softly moving away from cash or pushing against it. A possible next step is requiring digital payment for "sinful" products like cigarettes and alcohol.

Oh yea, privacy nightmare! Enjoy. I'm out.

How would my insurer get access to my payment history?

You will give it to them voluntarily for a massive discount. (-:

Or phrased differently, you'll have to pay extra to keep it from them.

As long as the information exists somewhere on a server, getting access to it is just a matter of politics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com