Mobile-Payment Vendors Beware: Sing The Song Of Standards Or Get Out

Written by Evan Schuman
November 10th, 2011

As the various mobile-payment vendors—including Google, ISIS and PayPal—try and woo retailers, they are finding the conversation repeatedly veering away from flashy functionality and into issues of standards compliance and providing specs that match what retailers are using today. Those are points of resistance, though, when the vendors desperately need to differentiate their offerings and to argue for critical time sensitivities (“you must trial this right now”).

The retail chains, which hold most of the important cards in this game, are quite content to sit back and let the process take time. Cutting deals with whoever remains standing makes it slightly less risky anyway. We spoke with a few senior retail IT execs about their mobile-payment vendor discussions and the comments from two were the most illuminating. Dollar Tree CIO Ray Hamilton said he sees the tech limitations issues as already resolved (“I would prefer to pay with my smartphone than with a magstripe card—a crude, historic technology invented during my youth. Smartphones will have more than sufficient processing capabilities to encrypt data during the NFC transaction.”). No, it’s the standards issues that are his greatest concern, especially given that there are really hardly any significant mobile standards yet.

“I am motivated to accept any form of tender desired by the public, so I am planning to ensure that Dollar Tree will never miss an opportunity to accept a payment from a willing customer due to their form of legal tender,” he said. “I hope that a standard is developed to simplify the acceptance at retail. The landscape looks more like a battlefield between the wireless companies [ISIS], Google, Apple and others rather than a standards-based environment. This will not be widely and quickly adopted until retailers can and want to write to the specifications. If the offerings are fragmented, it will be difficult to reach a mass of users/accepters that makes it commercially viable.”

Another national retail IT exec—one who specializes in payment security and, therefore, wanted to keep his name and that of his employer far away from his comments—initially poked fun at the key issues. “Mobile payment security? As in jumbo shrimp and military intelligence?” But his team is seriously trying to fight off other departments that are being tempted by vendor seductions.

“Although we see mobile payment as inevitable, Network Services and I are digging in our heels until we find an adequately secure way of handling it,” he said. “We’re currently piloting an external-tokenization (approach), which will replace our existing POS and E-Commerce payment processes and substantially reduce our PCI footprint. To be acceptable, any mobile-payment scheme will have to play nice in this new environment.”

He added that his group is also “under continuing and increasing pressure from retail. We do not permit direct Internet access of any kind from our owned-and-operated stores. Any process or transaction bound for any outside entity (UPS, acquirer, etc.) is routed back via VPN through our corporate datacenter. A mobile-payment scheme would have to be happy with this, too.”

The chain is going to mimic the iPhone/iPod sleds that are becoming a commonplace retail feature, something his group is fine with as long as security testing is all smiles. “If, as is advertised, it has all of the same physical and logical security features of the new payment terminals we’re piloting, it would work just fine,” he said, before adding the mandatory caveat: “Budget, of course, is another matter.”


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.