I just don't see it. Haven't we learnt over the last few years that consumers just don't seem to give a shit about their data? Conversely, even Apple not handing over keys to the FBI still doesn't put privacy-concerned folks like us at ease about an Apple Pay service (my peers and I, at least).
I actually kind of see it as being of no importance which way the coin falls here on what's been triggered by the San Bernardino case. The security oblivious will remain oblivious regardless of the outcome (identity politics and the Kardashians are far more compelling than encryption). Equally, the skeptical amongst us will remain skeptical - even if Cook holds onto the Iphone encryption we'll always be suspicious of backroom deals or potential backdoors. Whatever the fallout, neither scenario infringes on the legitimacy of Apple as a financial institution - should that even be their play.
I'm curious what your privacy concerns are regarding Apple Pay. Tokenized authentication seems notably more secure than any of the traditional card-based offerings. The seller only gets what you permit them to have, which in most cases is simply the token for the transaction to hit whatever card or bank account you have tied to it. The only reason merchants can ask for more, as far as I'm aware, is for shipping related purposes. If there's more to it though I'm certainly curious to know!
> consumers just don't seem to give a shit about their data?
This meme is more projection and wishful thinking than fact. People do "give a shit" about their data. Unfortunately, many people are do not understand the details about how much data they are giving up, or what alternatives are available.
Claims that people don't care about their data are useless until tech companies stop over-promising their features and security, and when data is only collected after verifying someone has giving their informed consent.
I was the initial developer on a system where the customers gave us access to their bank account and we would use their transactions to come up with (ultimately) an overall credit score.
Not just read-only access: their username and password. I was sure that would never fly. I was wrong - they had at least a few thousand customers in three months after launch. I don't know if that's a success, given the US population, but more than the zero I expected.
So... I think convenience trumps even bank account privacy.
Say what? It adds yet another vector upon which you can lose control of your data. But that's not the original point anyway.
Keep in mind, the original parent was discussing privacy of data, not security. It's very aparent that a majority of people don't give a shit based on their actions.
I suppose you are free to not believe this, but it's quite obvious.
In any case, not "giving a shit", and "not giving a shit AFTER your payment processor was compromised" is a very different thing.
They might not give a shit in principle. But they sure will raise hell if anything happens to them -- especially a big breach affecting tens of thousands or even millions.
And if Apple is the one having the breach, the media will also have a field day, like with all the BS -gates (antennagate, bending-gate, etc), but this time with a very real and very important issue...
Explicitly sharing your data to a third party doesn't mean you're OK with them getting hacked and exposed to the internets, or getting to the wrong hands.
I actually kind of see it as being of no importance which way the coin falls here on what's been triggered by the San Bernardino case. The security oblivious will remain oblivious regardless of the outcome (identity politics and the Kardashians are far more compelling than encryption). Equally, the skeptical amongst us will remain skeptical - even if Cook holds onto the Iphone encryption we'll always be suspicious of backroom deals or potential backdoors. Whatever the fallout, neither scenario infringes on the legitimacy of Apple as a financial institution - should that even be their play.