Category: EMV

The Card Was and Is Only a Credential Carrier

Cash is here to stay – cards are the true dinosaurs

This question of the extinction of the payment card is misleading. 

What is a payment card?  It is the carrier of a set of credentials, A means of Identification offering financial Attributes capable of being authenticated by a party seeking to sell something to the individual or entity presenting the credential as a mechanism to assure payment.

Back when credit cards were designed, the goal was to offer merchants a guarantee of payment and anonymous consumers a means of paying.  Behind this means of payment, a financial institution, the issuer, provides the consumer with a “Line of Credit”.

On the merchant side, another financial institution buys these guaranteed receivables from the merchant and charges the merchant a “merchant discount”.  Later that day the Issuing Institution advances payment to the Acquiring Institution based on an agreed set of terms and operating rules. Terms and conditions the involved financial institutions collectively agreed upon.

For this method of payment to be effective, a large number of consumers and merchants had to agree to participate; hence the financial institutions came together and formed what we now know as MasterCard and Visa.

Given the state of technology at the time it was essential this new mechanism work without the burden and expense associated with the merchant, supported by the acquirer, contacting the issuer to receive approval, or, in stronger terms be assured of a guarantee of payment.  To achieve this result, the merchant needed something to acquire the necessary information to submit a request for payment.  For both the merchants and financial institutions,, there had to be a means of authentication. Designed to assure the responsible parties of the authenticity of the person or entity to present their payment credentials.

To accomplish this goal, just like with money, physical security features are integrated into the payment card designed to allow the merchant to authenticate the uniqueness of the card carrying the payment credential, thus assuring the merchant of the authenticity of the card.

Overtime criminals successfully counterfeited these security features.

As these features were compromised additional features had to be added.

Today, a computer has been embedded inside the card, in order to assure the authenticity of the payment card credentials being presented to the merchant.

These computers embedded onto the front of a payment card exploit the power of cryptography.  Cryptographic certificates and digital signatures are created by and for these computers, allowing:

    • The Issuer (symmetric cryptography) to support Online Authentication
    • The merchant (asymmetric cryptography) to support Offline Data Authentication

These two mechanisms prove to the merchant and issuer that the card is unique and the data, credentials, and digital signature it contains or produces are authentic.

Once all the merchants have are capable of reading the data from the chip card, the security features of the card become redundant. 

As these features become redundant and the merchants embrace Near Field Communications, based on the ISO 14443 standard, the issuer can replace the card form factor with anything equipped with the necessary computational capabilities and ability to communicate with the terminal over the NFC interface.

This is exactly what Apple Pay and Google Pay have done.  They replaced the card with a device.  Yes, the Payment Card may become redundant.  But, the Payment Credentials they contain, remain.

What we know as card payments, is fundamentally an account-based solution. Money, through the defined settlement process, ultimately move from the line of credit or deposit account of the buyer, through a series of accounts with the participating financial institutions, to the account of the merchant.

Card-based credential payments
simply become
Device-based credential payments

 

EMVCo Good or Evil

https://www.securepaymentspartnership.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Payment_Insecurity_Final.pdf

In 1993, I was asked by the then CEO of Europay International to establish a relationship with Mastercard, and Visa focused on developing the specifications necessary to assure the interoperability of chip card-based security for credit and debit payment cards. The result published in 1996 was the “EMV Integrated Circuit Card Specifications for Payment Systems.”

From these humble beginnings, EMVCo has emerged as a key organization in managing the standards behind card payment systems.  In the white paper Payment Insecurity, commissioned by the Secure Payment Partnership, the author reminds us of the difference between standards managed by an open body and those tightly controlled by an exclusive group of competitors. One wonders if the owners of EMVCo will listen and strive to open up their membership or continue to use this entity to protect their proprietary interests.

In the introduction, the author speaks of a series of questions he intends to address.  The first question of the paper

Is EMVCo furthering the entire U.S. payments industry or simply protecting Visa and Mastercard’s market share? page 5

begs the question, why limit the discussion to the USA?

This American only focus is driven by the desires of the Unaffiliated Debit Networks and a set of merchants.  The paper ignores fundamental and, yes, anti-competitive elements of the EMV specification – the AID or the Application Identifier.  It was and is directly related to the Brand responsible for the underlining technology incorporated into the Chip.

I then read the following complaint and am driven to ask how the consumer interpreted the prior Debit versus Credit prompts.

Visa’s response to this solution was to require merchants to display to consumers a choice between “Visa Debit” and “U.S.
Debit” at checkout. – page 13

In essence, what Visa required was simple, the terminal should comply with the EMV specification for “application selection,” key and inherent in the multi-application design of EMV and the underlining ISO 7816.

Moving further into the document in Section 6.1, the author attempts to document the history leading to the creation of EMVCo.  As one of the founding members, the author’s sources were not involved and did not understand the history.

First, only France had a smart card solution designed to address Credit and Debit card fraud.  They referred to their implementation as B Zero Prime.

Second, the UK in 1995 was driven by Visa to embrace an earlier version of the Visa specifications adapted to the unique requirements of the UK market and branded UKIS.  UKIS and the unique UK requirements are responsible for changing many of the shall’s in the EMV 2.0 version of the specifications to should’s in the EMV 3.0 version.  This accommodation was the result of legacy limitation within the X25 network the United Kingdom depended on for card authorizations.

To further identify issues with his record of history, the statement on page 22

EMVCo developed standards for chip cards that could work with credit, debit and stored-value cards

It is fair to suggest EMV attempted to incorporate Stored-Value cards in the specification.  But as a result of the competitive realities of Europay’s Clip, Mastercard’s Mondex, and Visa Visa Cash stored value solutions, they agreed to exclude stored value cards from the specifications.

It then goes on to suggest EMV compromised and offered a Signature option.  There was not a compromise; it was intentional.  The goal, afford the Issuer the ability to determine, by Cardholder, which cardholder verification method they could be configured for.  One need was to address issues of the disabled, e.g., the Blind.

Debit Routing as a result of the Durbin amendment.  One might wonder why EMV did not consider this idea of multiple networks associated with a card.

EMVCo was unable and unwilling to resolve the lack of a debit AID because EMV was never designed for the U.S. market.

I sense that there is another front coming out of the Debit Networks seeking to argue the anti-competitive nature of EMV.  The paper, link below, draws me to wonder about the argumentation surrounding “Application Selection.”  Please let’s get back to basics – the “AID=Brand=Payment Scheme” drives “Routing.”

On page 13, it argues consumer confusion.   I would argue it ignores the past.  The EMV default user prompts of “Visa Debit” and “US Debit” are no more confusing than the historic “Credit,” and “Debit” prompts.  I would argue consumer confusion already existed.  The EMV specification for Application Selection simply afforded the Issuer the ability to provide more descriptive prompts by employing the “Application Preferred Name” instead of the default “Application Label.”

This whole fight surrounding EMV and Payment Security is really a fight about the future of Card Payments.  On one face, they argue the Payment Networks did not assure the security of the card payments to protect revenue. On the other hand, they argue EMVCo is a closed standards organization designed to protect and assure the interests of its shareholders, without consideration for the other stakeholders in the payment, e.g., the merchant.

In the end, the argument comes down to the role, definition, and control.   How we structure the underlining payment transaction is what we need to talk about.  Who provides the mechanism, guarantee, and support for a particular mechanism decides the rules.

The Identifier should not be the Authenticator

I was asked to look into the value of the EMV Secure Remote Commerce Specifications.  In the first section they wrote:

“1.1 Background … While security of payments in the physical terminal environment have improved with the introduction of EMV specifications, there have been no such specifications for the remote commerce environment. …”

This statement caused a bit of angst.  It caused me to think of the work to create SET and Visa’s efforts to promote the original version of 3D-Secure.  I was further reminded of how difficult it has been to find the balance between convenience and fraud and how merchants are more worried about abandonment than they are about the cost of fraud. Ultimately, it caused me to wonder about the goal of the EMV 3-D Secure specification.

“To reflect current and future market requirements, the payments industry recognised the need to create a new 3-D Secure specification that would support app-based authentication and integration with digital wallets, as well as traditional browser-based e-commerce transactions. This led to the development and publication of the EMV® 3-D Secure – Protocol and Core Functions Specification. The specification takes into account these new payment channels and supports the delivery of industry leading security, performance and user experience.”

The keywords found in the last sentence “the delivery of industry leading security, performance and user experience” suggest these two specifications are searching to solve the same problem.

According to the Oxford dictionary

Security is

    • “The state of being free from danger or threat.”
    • “Procedures followed or measures taken to ensure the security of a state or organization.”

Authentication is

    • “The process or action of proving or showing something to be true, genuine, or valid.”
    • “Computing The process or action of verifying the identity of a user or process.“

On this same page, the authors go on to make the following statement

“… there is no common specification to address the functional interactions and transmission of data between the participants.”

This then causes me to wonder about the original ISO 8583 specification, the current ISO 20022 specification, and the subsequent concept of the three-domain model within the 3D-Secure specification.  All three of these specifications define the interaction between the participants while not restricting the method of transmitting the data.  It seems the authors of the SRC specifications have forgotten history.  Or, are they trying to rewrite history.

At this stage, Authentication seems to the most important part of what EMV is attempting to address.  But,  the focus seems to be more about rewriting history that solving the fundamental problem.  We seem to have this desire to take public identifiers and convert them into secrets.

“An industry transition from a dependency on Consumer entry of PAN data can be accomplished by providing an SRC specification that meets the needs of all stakeholders involved.”

These intriguing contradictions beg the question.  Why did the authors of the Secure Remote Commerce specification not reference the good work of those that created the 3D-Secure specification and propose an approach unlike EMV?  They all are part of the same organization!

Is the goal not to address authentication and Security of the payment transactions, be they instore or on the Internet.  I would argue

We allowed the PAN, the payment card identifier, to become a means of authentication

This use of the PAN as both an identifier and an authenticator; reminds me of a hearing of the United States House Committee on Ways and Means May 17th, 2018 hearing on “Securing Americans’ Identities: The Future of the Social Security Number”.

“House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) announced today that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing entitled “Securing Americans’ Identities: The Future of the Social Security Number.” The hearing will focus on the dangers of the use of the Social Security number (SSN) as both an identifier and authenticator, and examine policy considerations and possible solutions to mitigate the consequences of SSN loss or theft.”

All the witnesses and most of our members of congress accepted and understood the problem.  We allowed a simple government-issued identifier to become a means of authentication, in other words, an authenticator.  Like allowing the social security number and now also the PAN to become part of how we authentic someone’s identity.  We caused these publically available identifiers to become valuable and sensitive PII data.

Cardholder Authentication and Consumer Device Identification

What is clear, as one continues reading the SRC specifications, is the goal is to reduce the frequency of presenting payment credentials on merchant websites.

“Minimising the number of times Consumers enter their Payment Data by enabling consistent identification of the Consumer and/or the Consumer Device”

A very different approach to what the payment schemes do with the EMV based payment process.  The authors of EMV saw the PAN as public data, they architected something designed to assure the uniqueness of the card and the ability to positively verify cardholder.  Card Authentication and Cardholder Verification.

Why not simply think and focus on the same architecture?  Simply change the word “card” to “device” and focus on Device Authentication and Cardholder Verification or as everyone is promoting Multi-Factor Authentication.  We simply need to make sure the thing is genuine and the right individual is using the thing.  The thing is what the cardholder has – The “what you have” factor.  Add a pin/password or better still a biometric to be the second factor the “what you know” or “what you are” factor.

EMV 3D-Secure creates the ability to exploit the “what you have” factor by offering Device fingerprint data to the issuer’s authentication process.

 

Smart Cards with Fingerprint Scanners

Over the last couple of years the reality of fingerprint cards is a hot topic in conversation, white papers and press articles.  It led me to think about the challenges and opportunities associated with this intriguing convergence of technologies.

My purpose is not to determine which solution is best or which companies are developing and selling them.  My goal is simply to explore.

The first consideration begins when the card is constructed.  Here we must ask the mechanical question relative to how the electronics are integrated into the strata of an ID-1 card.  This then begs the question of making sure this new card conforms to the specifications dictated by Payment, Networks, Governments or other bodies who define the use of these branded cards.  If we continue to think about the card manufacturing process we need to think about electronics and the use of heat in the typical lamination process or the inclusion of metallic materials used to create a particular look.  One needs to think about the method of connecting the various internal components to the other electronic elements  as the fingerprint scanner, antenna(s)m LEDs, batteries, the EMV chip or contact plate on the face of the card.

The second set of concerns must be related to the personalization of the card.  First question is where will it be personalized? in a branch or within a bureau?  How will it be personalized? With a thermal printer, laser engraver or embossing machine?  Will any of the  personalization processes adversely affect the electronic?. Similarly it will be appropriate to confirm whether any of the various card transport mechanisms will disrupt or damage the sensor and related electronics.

At some point in the processes the consumer must register their fingerprint and the resulting template must be instantiated into the card.  How will this be done?  Some speak of an in branch process.  Others talk about some type of first time cardholder activation process performed when they receive the card in the mail.

Clearly there are a lot more questions the issuer, card manufacturer and personalization provider need to address.  Let alone the method of making sure the cardholder knows how to use the card at the point of sale or ATM

The key question is the cost of the card, is it worth it?

The Dual Interface Business Case

These cards and often times the terminals are more expensive than a classic “Dip” EMV card

How much, is dependent on volume, complexity and the pure skill of negotiation. This incremental expense is the first factor one must quantify when building the business case

  • for enabling, in the case of the terminal
  • adding in the case of the card, the contactless antenna
  • upgrading the software by adding the contactless terminal kernels or selecting the appropriate chip software and profile

This then must be compared to the incremental value
For the merchant, issuer and ultimately the cardholder

To explore the benefits lets think about

  • The user experience
  • Availability of merchant contactless acceptance
  • The intersect of the cardholder base with the contactless acceptance infrastructure

As we look around the world and consider what stimulates dual interface card issuance and merchant NFC enablement. Two scenarios emerge.

  • A country made a collective decision and drove NFC terminal enablement and dual card issua.
  • A merchant segment, typically transit, decided to introduce electronic fare-collection.

The first scenario is often driven:

  • By the payment schemes
  • The belief NFC “Near Field Communications” mobile payments will happen
  • A country simply wants to start dual interface and prepare for mobile payments

Which ever option they select, the merchant and financial institutions, within the country, typically migrate together.

In the case of the second scenario, merchant driven migration. We can look to the United Kingdom as a perfect example. “Transit For London” made the decision to migrate from paper tickets to an electronic fare-collection solution based on NFC. The initial deployment was a closed loop payment card, branded the Oyster Card, they quickly decided to upgrade the solution to support Open Loop e.g. Visa, MasterCard and American Express enable dual interface cards and NFC enabled mobile phones.

Given the importance of public transit to the urban demographic. Their decision to embrace open contactless fear collect, becomes a driving factor for issuers and therefore a ripple effect on merchant enablement.

America, as is true in many things, is different.

Contactless was tried last decade without much success.

Issuers did not see any significant lift in consumer spend nor did the merchant see any real increase in revenues. This experiment did not create a perception of a real benefit for either the merchant of the cardholder. Later in this same period, Starbucks launched their QR code mobile payment solution. From its original deployment to now it has been a resounding success.

Around the same time and based on the work of GSMA and the European Payment Council, major telecom operators began toying with NFC based mobile payments. Here in the United States two pilots emerged, the original Google Pay pilot and ISIS (SoftCard) offer. The results were intriguing, the commitment half hearted and frankly both solutions had issues. Google Pay tried to model its solution after de-coupled debit. Whereas the mobile network operators behind SoftCard, wanted to charge the issuers rent and load fees associated with the payment credentials they would store within the SIM.

Merchants Attempted to Create a new Payment Scheme

Major retailers in their continued quest to improve the customer experience and reduce the cost of payments; came together to create MCX the Merchant Commerce eXchange. The hope, merge their existing private label charge card programs together into a Mobile App capable of working across the family of MCX merchants.

Terms where written, in particular one agreeing these merchants would not accept another competing Mobile Wallet. Net result, the merchants agreed not to enable the NFC interface for any of the Visa, MasterCard, Discover or American Express contactless cards or NFC enabled mobile payment devices.
MCX slowly faded into oblivion, as the merchants struggles with the idea of sharing customer relationships and transaction data. Some merchants notably Walmart, Target, Macy’s and Kohl’s set out to build their won mobile wallets embracing QR codes and other none NFC based techniques.

The Introduction of HCE

While this was going on, north of the American border, the idea of HCE “Host Card Emulation” was created by the founders of Simply tapping 2011. It was ultimately by Android and released as part of KitKat in version 4.4 of the Android operating system. With HCE now inside the Android Operating System it unlocked the NFC interface from dependence on the SIM and MNOs. Now any application could take advantage of the NFC interface, once supported by the internarional payments schemes, enabling wider deployment of NFC enabled mobile payments. Google moved ahead to expand its payment ecosystem and Royal Bank of Canada embraced HCE. As Issuers enabled the ability to authorize the load of EMV secured Payment Credentials into the OEM Mobile Wallet or the Issuer’s own mobile app. Consumer now had the opportunity to experiment with mobile payments that communicate with the POS, just like a dual interface card.

Let’s not forget Apple Pay.

Given their brand value and total control of the Apple operating environment, Apple was able to turn to Issuers and suggest they enable the load of EMV secured Payment Credentials into the Apple Pay Wallet. They came at payments with all guns loaded. They knew the value of their brand and were able, unlike the MNOs to ask for a 0.15% of the issuers’ interchange revenue. Most importantly, they facilitated Visa and Mastercard domination of the role of the Trusted Service Manager TSM-SP or better said the Token Service Provider TSP.

Merchant Acceptance Is Key

As has been true with any solution designed to serve a two sided market, issuance and acceptance must grow together to assure the operator success and prosperity. Without a national imperative and with the experience of the original ZIP (Discover), Express Pay (Amex), PayPass (MasterCard) and PayWave (Visa), the merchant must determine if it is worth the effort to enable the NFC interface and train their staff to support Contactless payments.

Transit, like has been true around the world, absolutely sees the value of using contactless, for fare collection and are busy engaging with Visa and MasterCard to embrace and assure acceptance of bank branded dual interfaces cards. Urban areas such as Chicago (CTA), Salt Lake City (UTA), LA Metro, Portland OR (Trimet) and Philadelphia (SEPTA) are live with deployments. Others are in various stages of planned, including the MTA in New York City.

The Business Case

For issuers, where transit is seeking to exploit open loop contactless payments, at the turnstile, there is a revenue opportunity to deploy dual interface cards.

In rural areas or urban communities where public transportation does not exist. The business case is dependent on what local merchants do and if they intend to or will be forced to enable the NFC capabilities of their POS.

This is the big question. Does the merchant see value? Do they believe contactless will increase revenue, reduce time at checkout or do they believe Apple Pay, Android Pay and the other mobile NFC enabled devices are the future?

  • If the answer to these questions is yes then Issuers should seriously consider deploying dual interface cards.
  • If the jury is still out then the investment in dual interface cards may not yet be worth it!

What is the Future Payment Credential Carrier

One cannot discuss contactless payments without thinking about how Apple Pay, Android Pay, Samsung Pay, OEM Pay, Issuer Pay … Device Pay play into the future of cards. Some years ago there were three belief systems

  1. Cards are here to stay the mobile device is a fad
  2. The wallet is replaced by the mobile device
  3. The card is the token of last resort

I think we know mobile devices are not a fad. Until mobile devices never run out of power they will not replace the wallet or all of the cards.

To say much more, given the fogginess my crystal ball, would be to wild a bet.

The following articles produced by the Secure Technology Alliance offer a series of perspectives on the value of migrating to a dual interface card.

Alliance Activities : Publications : Contactless Smart Cards

Alliance Activities : Publications : Payments : Contactless Payments

Alliance Activities : Events : Webinar: Contactless EMV Payments: Issuer Opportunities

Alliance Activities : Events : Webinar: Contactless EMV Payments: Merchant Opportunities

Dual Interface Construction

When we think about the migration to contactless or Dual Interface cards it is important to have a general understanding of what goes into creating the card and the constraints one has to think about, as they work with their marketing teams to design these cards.

The design of a payment card involves assembling multiple of PVC into a sandwich that will be bonded and then punched out to form the card body.

  • On the face of the card: a clear laminate to protect the surface
  • On the back a clear laminate with the magnetic stripe affixed to it

In the middle two printed sheets

  • The front
  • The back

In the middle of the card body, your manufacturer will need to insert an antenna.   The antenna is typically provided to the card manufacturer as an inlay, as seen on the left.  The inlay is a sheet of plastic with the copper antenna, sometimes aluminum embedded within.  The card manufacture will add this inlay into the middle of sandwich.

On the right is an example of a six layer card construction including one element as an example, a metal foil.  This has been included given it has an impact on the effectiveness of the radio signal.  More about this a little later.  Using pressure and heat, the layers of the sandwich are bonded together in a process called lamination.  The bonded sandwich is then run through a series of additional processes designed to create an ID-1 card as specified in the ISO 7810 specifications supplemented by the additional payment network requires, such as the signature panel and the hologram.

After quality inspection the next step is to mill and embedded chip into the card body and simultaneously assure a connection between the contacts on the back of the chip and the antenna.  There are various means of connecting the chip to the antenna.  These different methodologies for connecting the chip to the antenna is a specific skill and is the responsibility of your card manufacturer.  Look to your manufacturers to propose, construct and certify your card to your requirements and employing their unique processes, techniques and technologies.

One thing you will need to be aware of is how the use of the antenna affects the certification process.  It is important to understand that the combination of ink, materials and methods of construct means; each construction will need to go through a unique certification.  This need for certification is a result of the use of radio frequency to communicate between the card and the terminal.  Think of your cell phone when your inside a big building or within an elevator and how the conversation maybe disrupted.  It is this possibility of the radio signal to be disruption based on the materials employed and the method of construction.

When metal elements like metallic foils and layers are used in card construction, the challenge increases.  Eddy currents are emitted by the metal and will interfere with the level of power and quality of communications emanated by the antenna and radio in the POS  received by the antenna and the computer in the card.

So far we have spoken only of the hardware.  The chip in the card is a computer and needs an operating environment, application and data in-order to function.  The introduction of the contactless interface alters the operating environment, the payment applications and the data which is loaded into the card.  All of this impacts the card manufacturing and card personalization process.

 

Will the US truly embrace dual interface cards or is our phone the future

When the US decided to migrate to EMV, it took the safe course

When it was time to migrate to EMV here in the USA, both issuers and acquirers focused on addressing the market and the required technology, one step at a time.  They recognized the confusion created by the Durbin Amendment, the reality of the competitive US debit market, the complexity of the merchant environment and the legacy infrastructure underneath the American card payment system.  Unfortunately unlike in other parts of the world the American merchants tended to migration to  EMV in the following order credit & debit, Common AID, contactless (MSD mode), Mobile Pays and finally contactless (EMV mode).  This journey is still a long way from complete with less than 25% of the terminal base contactless enabled, let alone in EMV contactless mode.

The larger and most invested merchants also worried about the impact of sharing data with the likes of Amazon, Google and Apple.  The “honor all card” rule is also the “honor all wallet” requirement.  Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot were clear, they did not intend to expose the NFC antenna to the various NFC Mobile Wallets.  Instead they are implementing solutions, post MCX, based on their mobile apps using QR codes and often times enabled to support frictionless payment.

We are now looking at the second wave of card issuance and Issuers are wondering what merchants will finally do about enabling contactless.    As the Issuers prepare to issue their cardholders with their second EMV enabled card they must also think about the future of the card in the context of the future of mobile payments.

Are the payment credentials carried in the mobile wallet the companion of the card
or
Is the card the companion (fallback) for the payment credential carried in mobile wallet / device

Or
Are we on a journey to a new paradigm
Where facial recognition, loyalty, geolocation
Enabled by the always connected devices

We surround ourselves with
Help merchants to focus on
the shopping experience
And
Turn the Payment into

A frictionless “thank you”

 

The Future of EMVCo Next Gen

Back in 2011, when I was part of American Express, I was part of the team responsible for our involvement in the work of EMVCo.  At this stage in the work of EMV the discussion had turned to the confusion the multiple contactless kernels was creating in the market and more importantly the challenges we would face as the external threats increased demanding that the length of the RSA keys increase accordingly.  Ultimately we collectively determined the best course of action was to begin the work on what began know as “Next Gen”.  From the beginning it was well understood the migration from where we are today to the “Next Gen” technology solution, both in the card and on the terminal, would be complex and expensive.  In September of 2014 an initial specification was released and my understanding is that a draft has been issued to subscribers and Associates for review and feedback.

This post stems from a conversation with a good friend, he asked me if I thought there was still relevance to what is now being called 2nd Gen.  In that discussion we reviewed the genesis of the work, the baseline for EMV and the unfortunately reality of how contactless was implemented.  Our conversation then turned to the question of what makes the most sense live with what we have today or suffer the expense of the migration to a new solution.

Thinking back to the original reason for “Next Gen” was to consolidate the 7 contactless kernels into one common kernel and replacement  RSA with what was called XDA or Elliptic Curves.  When I think about these two requirements one can only wonder why in the most recent EMVCo Stated EMV® 2nd Generation there is no  reference to enhanced cryptography.  In fact the only thing the document describes is the creation of one unique kernel.

Referring back to the September 2014 Net Gen Specification there is clear reference to enhanced security with specific call out of “an elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman key establishment protocol with blinding applied by the card”.  I then remember hearing about issues with Elliptic Curves and wonder why there is no reference to enhanced cryptograph in this most recent EMVCo document.

Back to the question raised in our conversation.

Do I see value in the world investing in the migration to 2nd Generation?

The answer is I am not sure anymore. 

When EMV started we had four agreed requirements, summarized on this slide I initially created back in 1994.  Offline Authorization, in other words, the issuer’s ability to securely approve a transaction without requiring the terminal to request an expensive online authorization request was the reason Offline Authentication was part of the original design of EMV.

  • If the value of offline authentication, given the ubiquity of wired and wireless telecommunications networks, is deprecated.
  • If  the performance efficiencies, original seen in Elliptic Curves, is no longer as significant, given the increased threats and vulnerability.

Then why make the investment in changing the software in both the card and the terminal to support XDA?

Next

  • If most if not all terminal manufacturers have addressed the complexity of the multi-kernel configurations, compounded by the existence of various unique national contactless kernels.

Then why demand the investment in supporting a complex migration from multiple kernels to a single EMVCo Licensed kernel?

Finally

The threat of quantum cryptograph suggests that most if not all asymmetric cryptographic algorithms commercially available will be broken.

It does beg the question.

What is the business case for driving the world into a expensive, long and complicated migration?

What we created in 1994, and EMVCo has maintained, is a very effective Online Authentication mechanism, the ARQC.  A mechanism based on symmetric cryptography which, as far as I can tell, will remain under the control of the Issuer and is not, as of yet, threatened by quantum computing.

I look forward to your feedback.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Something to wonder about

What You Have

The Two Sided Market

When we think of investing in various macro business needs e.g. revenue. We see that establishing relationships with customers to stimulate sales is why we create the goods and services, hopefully, others want.

If the buyer has something the seller wants, in exchange for the good or service they desire, then a transaction occurs. The challenge is simple, each party defines the value of what they are providing or exchanging and presto the trade occurs.

When society grows and the complexity of what each of us produces and when our needs are not aligned to this process called barter, a means of monetization is established. Society creates a trusted form of exchange – pebbles, coins, money, a promissory note or now even cyptocurrencies.

In other words, society creates an answer to enable the exchange of goods and services between parties who do not have goods and services the other party seeks in exchange.

With cash, coins or other trangible representations of value, commerce is easy. When we complicate things and worry about carrying cash and seek to buy things with debt. A need for a Network emerges.

These payment networks, by necessity, add complexity. They create the need to establish two sides to the market, one focused on the relationship with the buyer and the other with the seller.

Issuance and Acceptance. Two words to descibe the two sides of a network. It’s only when the two sides of the market have sufficient participants. Only at the tipping point, enough critical mass exists, to create a self sustaining network. This is the network. At this moment the network blossoms. If either side of the market does not achieve critical mass, the network collapses.

Any two entities familiar and trusting in the Brand, or each other, can easily establish a temporary relationship. Adding anonymity to the requirements, increases the leave of trust and recognition the Brand must establish.

In a digital environment we have to define mechanisms to share and establish trust across trillions of electrons. The two sides will not pursue understanding of nor focus on security. Until the risk exceeds a threshold unique to each party on either side of the market.

To often in the past, the idea of the individuality of the individual or the need to design security in from the beginning. Has left us with a legacy of system all needing design of custom approaches to how to integrate security with requisites necessary to capture, calculate and manage risk.

The Artifact of Trust

When a mutually trusted set of parties gives the citizen, consumer, employee or courtier a card, a device or an object and provides every acceptor with a reader capable of recognizing the trusted thing; then the two parties are in a position to establish “trust”. The consumer has a thing which is recognized and trusted by the acceptor. This is often referred to as “What You Have”.

Once the thing is recognized by the acceptor, then, the process of identification and authorizations (the transaction) can take place. The object – the artifact – carries an identifier. It possesses characteristics that establish its unique character. The object also posesses a means of assuring the acceptor the presentation of that identifier repreents a unique entity.

The simplest artifact of establishing “trust” is a hand held thing, be it a key, fob, card, watch, pendant, phone, ear piece. It does not matter what it is, all that counts is that the merchant recognizes it and that the consumer is willing to carry and present it.

Trust, for the merchant, means they can, according to the rules, recognize and authenticate the thing. They are then in a possition to pursue a temporary and trusted relationship. What can be achieved during the time the relationship of trusted is bounded, is the constrained by an additional layer. In this layer the consumer, the acceptor and any third parties address which the rights and privileges are to be granted or pursued. This is when the exchange, sale, conversation, tranaction, event or access is granted.

Two sides meet several common mediums of exchange are available.

[contact-form][contact-field label=”Name” type=”name” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Email” type=”email” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Website” type=”url” /][contact-field label=”Message” type=”textarea” /][/contact-form]

Legacy the American disease

When we look at what this market have done my own journey parrallels.

The adoption of something new it is a human process influenced by culture.

1976 first programming job and exposure to OCR and timeshare

1978 cash management, electronic money transfer, ACH & Wire

1982 Digital, video and voice integration.

What happened to Marginal Satisfaction?

1986 fiber across the Atlantic

The wall

1994 Stir EMV, drive WWW payments, cryptography, MFA

1996 Convergence of leather and technology

2001

2003 EMV in Canada

2008 Lehman went bankrupt

2015 US EMV Liability Shift

2018 WebauthN Web payments Web of things

Now we think next. What next?

Mobile Payment – Thoughts after listening

Thoughts resulting from The webinar Doug King of the Atlanta Federal Reserve gave on “Future Proofing Payments”

The long standing question of the future of Mobile Payments, again discussed and again similar conclusions.

  • Will the American market embrace the idea of mobile payments?
  • Is it a question of when or a question of why?
  • Why do emerging markets embrace new ways and mature markets resist?
  • Is it all about acceptance and the merchants investment in contactless reader capability?
  • Is it an all or nothing concern?
  • Could it be simply reality, as ling need our wallet with other cards e.g. our drivers license, why eliminate payment cards from the physical wallet?

Doug touched on all of these questions. He shared relevant statistics demonstrating the slow and possibly indistinguishable grow in usage of mobile wallets. He shared the success of several of the merchant proprietary mobile payment approaches.

Which leads me down the path of another question. What is the value proposition that will ignite the use of our phone and devices as carriers of our means of payment? The possibility to create value simply with a electronic wallet carrying only means of payment, does not create an exciting proposition.

Our mobile phones and connected devices provide us with such value

We have embraced dozens of apps. They help us to navigate, shop, explore, play and learn. Our phones are beginning to become security devices, taking advantage of sensors to integrate biometrics into how we access and authenticate ourselves as we browse and explore the ever increasing digital place we now call cyber space.

There is another phenomena emerging as a result of how we are transforming how we engage. Some called it the “Uberization” of payments, the ability to make payments frictionless. A change so profound we must stop and reflect and ponder what next.

I recognize there is a repetitive theme to my musing.

When physical world merchants fully embrace the concept of omni channel and build their virtual and physical experiences to complement and augment one another, then, with the ability to integrate payment seamlessly into the shopping experience a value proposition emerges.

What is EMVCo goal with the release of their SRC framework

October 2017 EMVCo published version 1.o of their Secure Remote Commerce Technical Framework.  Today I decided to read and appreciate what they are trying to accomplish and then consider how it ties into what I remember and think we need to do moving forward.

Clearly the challenge links back to the now infamous New Yorker Cartoon.  We have not successfully established a means of assuring the identity of an individual when presenting payment credentials (the PAN, Expiry date, name, billing address and CVV.  The first attempt, still not 100% implemented, was the introduction of CVV2, CVC2 or CID a 3 or 4 digit number printed on the back or the front of the payment card.

We then developed something called SET or Secure Electronic Transactions and unfortunately the payment networks were not willing to allow Bill Gates and Microsoft to earn 0.25% of every sale for every transaction secured by SET he proposed to build into Microsoft’s browser.  Without easy integration into the consumer browser, the challenges of integrating SET into the merchant web pages and the Issuer authorization systems caused this effort to fail the death of some many other noble but complicated attempts to create a means of digital authentication.

Next came 3D-Secure, a patented solution Visa developed.  It offered what was considered a reasonable solution to Cardholder authentication.  Unfortunately, given the state of HTML and the voracious use of pop-ups, the incremental friction, led to abandon shopping carts and consumer confusion.  Another aborted attempt at Internet fraud mitigation.

Yet 3D-Secure was not a total failure.  Many tried to enhance it, exploit it and avail themselves of the shift of liability back to the Issuer.  Encouraging consumer engagement and adoption was futile in some markets mandated and cumbersome in others.

Now let’s consider what EMVCo is attempting to do with their Secure Remote Commerce Technical Framework.  As I started to read, I ran into this:

“As remote commerce becomes increasingly targeted and susceptible to compromise, it is important to establish common specifications that protect and serve Consumers and merchants.”

Clearly the authors do not have institutional memory and cannot remember the various attempts alumni of these same organizations spent time on and encouraged many to invest in their implementing.  Clearly this lack of historic context will leave some pondering the purpose of this paper.

I then read this sentence and reflect back on a recent hearing on “Social Security Numbers Loss and Theft Prevention” in front of The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security

“Over time the Consumer has been trained to enter Payment Data and related checkout data anywhere, making it easy for bad actors to compromise data and then attempt fraud.”

Once again, I stand  troubled by how the Payment Data clearly printed on the face of the card and especially the PAN, 11-19 digits, designed to simply be an identifier, was converted into an authenticator.  Like the social security number, the drivers license number, the passport number and your library card number, the PAN and other “Payment Data” was never designed to be an authenticator.  It was meant to be data a merchant could freely record.

The secure features of the card now the EMV cryptographic techniques otherwise referred to as the Application Request Cryptogram “ARQC” were meant to offer the “What You Have”  factor in a multi-factor authentication scheme.

As I began to appreciate the scope of this document, the term “Consumer Device” becomes critical.  I began to wonder if a PC is a consumer device or if a consumer device is only something like a mobile phone, watch or other like appliance.  Fortunately, later in the document, the definition clears up any confusion created by the earlier use of this term..  This said, I then wonder about the difference between what they define as Cardholder Authentication and Consumer Verification?

After reading through all the definitions, I ponder why the authors had to change terminology?  Why could they not embrace known and recognized nomenclature.  Do we need a new vocabulary?

I wondered:

If this is another attempt to create a revenue stream for the payment networks?

Or, is this the effort of a “closed standards” body to reduce the potential value of the W3C WebPayments activity?

 In search of an answer to this last question, I found this discrete comment inside the SRC FAQ.

9. Are any other industry bodies working in this area?

EMV SRC is focused on providing consistency and security for card-based payments within remote payment environments.

EMVCo aims to work closely with industry participants such as W3C to capitalise on opportunities for alignment where appropriate.

Having read bits and pieces of this and the WebPayments efforts one does wonder what is EMVCo trying to do.  We shall see?

Why do we need Tokens and Tokenization

Recently I was directed to a link http://paymentsjournal.com/tokens-work-because/ and wanted to write the author Sarah Grotta.  As I wrote the message crystallized in my head and maybe as this prior post already discussed, this idea of tokenization made me cringe.

I contend that Tokens exist because we turned the PAN Personal  / Primary Account Number, like we turned the SSN Social Security Number, into an authenticator.  One can must ask the question.  How can a random value (an identifier) become an authenticator and remain secure?

EMV works because it renders the Card unique, hence addressing the question of counterfeit, by employing the first factor of the classic MFA Multi-Factor Authentication concept “What You Have”.  EMV defined a common set of secrets and digital credentials; securely stored in a Secure Element or Chip Card.

We here in the United States decided not to implement the second factor, the Personal Identification Number or PIN, for a variety of reasons. Hence, why Lost and Stolen remains an issue or weakness in the American Card Payment environment.

Biometrics are emerging and could solve for the assurance of cardholder presence.  The challenge is how to effectively (cost and convenience) locate the biometric sensor and facilitate the matching of the sensors output to the persons registered biometric.  Let alone, how does one make sure the right persons biometric was registered and associated with the device.

In the mail order / telephone order, now cyberspace, we did not replicate merchant authentication, the first factor – “What You Have. The card, once was secured with things like the magnetic stripe, using CVV1, the Hologram and the other physical features.  We simply shifted the liability to the merchant and called it a “card not present” transaction.

People can claim all sorts of goodness because of tokenization.  They can talk about how the EMVCo’s tokenization framework describes the use of tokens in device and domain specific scenarios.  All of this, an issuer, could have done; if they, like some did, simply issued another number, a PAN, to the wife, bracelet, watch, ring or whatever other permutation they deemed appropriate.  They can talk about dynamic data.  yet what they often forget to include when they use the words “Dynamic Data” they are really talking about a cryptographic value as described in EMVCo Book 2.

Yes, this does mean the question of how the PAN and its digital credentials get deployed; has to be addressed.  This said, GSMA with EPC did offer some thoughts, last decade, when they described the Trusted Service Manager

Instead handset oligopolies replaced the MNO with the their Mobile Pay wallets.  They working with the Payment Networks and focused on control and the creation of income.  They, as monopolist will, have created barriers, restricting others from offering comparable services.  The TSP now becomes this restrictive service that guarantees the power of companies like Apple and Google, supported by their friends, the payment network operators.

The original article also spoke of the PAR; another data element merchants, processors and the industry, will have to invest in supporting.

I ask the question.

If we had assured the authentication and verification of every payment transaction
Using Multi-Factor Authentication
Why did we need to turn the PAN into a dynamic value? 

My contention, simply use the appropriate level of  cryptography.

If the Issuer or their processor is in control and understands basic EMV and Cryptography, then securing the PAN is not an issue.

Consider household financial management.  If each member of a household has a unique PAN; budget, tax preparation and understanding who spent what where is a lot easier.  The husband,wife and children should have their own unique PAN, stored in the clear in their devices and on their card.

The real requirement, my personal devices, including my payment card, simply need to be linked to one PAN their Personal Account Number, associated with the individual.  The PAN Sequence number could easily allows each device to be uniquely identified, if necessary.  The card and devices becomes the carrier of your identifier.  A thing that can be authentication as something you have.

Here is where the second factor comes in.  Is the person presenting the PAN the rightful and authorized individual? All this required, is assurance to the shareholders that the presentment of the PAN is a unique and authorized event.  This is best achieve by using either something you know or something you are to bind the individual to the instrument carrying the Identifier.

Yes, a bit of friction to assure the  consumer they are securely paying for what they want to buy

Since the World Wide Web came of age and merchants saw its potential.  The question of how to secure the Card Not Present space, this question of cardholder presence, has not been properly addressed.  Visa and MasterCard (when they were not for profit associations) created the utility of the Card Verification Result CVV2, CID or CVC2 which would be printed on  on the card and not part of the magnetic stripe, the problem the bad guys could still steal the card or get hte card number and capture CVV2..  MasterCard and Visa then created SET, 3D-Secure and now, as for profit owners of EMVCo, are proposing, maybe even will mandate, the industry implement EMV 3D-Secure.

Each, an attempt to provide some means of Authentication and Verification.

Each introducing a level of friction as a means of security.

This is the problem.  The market did not start by emphasizing the need for security by educating the consumer.  The industry needed to help the consumer understand they should care and want to securely pay for what they intend to buy.

Instead:

  • The Zero Liability Policy was adopted.
  • The merchant was more than happy to sustain a degree of lose (fraud) in exchange for sales and profits.

The result, as all anticipated would happen, was blissfully ignored and eventually they cried out about.

Fraud migrated to the weakest point
Just like water finds its way to the lowest point. 

EMV, introduced in the Face to Face card present environment, pushing the bad guys: be they criminals, state actors and terrorists to find alternate another channels for their financial gain.

EMV and now the recently published WebAuthN and FIDO specifications create effective mechanisms for Consumer Authentication.

Let us please remember – the PAN, a user name, your social security number or your email address are excellent Identifiers.  They should not be authenticators and they are not a means of “Identification”.

Let us also remember, the term Identification means that one is assured of the irrefutability of identity.

The big question:

  • Why did we have to get rid of or replace the PAN?
  • Why did we and continue to need to invent and invest in all this addition overhead?
  • Why did we not simply address authentication?

Some will argue the challenge of using the PIN or a Password, as a means of Verification, is because it is to hard to remember. Especially, if each password people use to access website, services, building, has to be unique.  Some will argue imposing friction to add security is not convenient.  Others will remind us that security is and has been a necessity since the beginning of time.

Why didn’t we when we created this great new digital shopping mall?

Bottom line each of the devices used to present or acquire the PAN, must be capable of authenticating the identity of the authorized presenter, in both the physical and virtual world.

At least these are the views of someone who believe history provides a baseline for tomorrow and tomorrow must be designed as a function of where you want to be, knowing where things came from.

 

Of NFC, Mobile and History

Today I read Karen Augustine’s  Mobile Payments Use in the U.S. Lags

As I read and reflected on what Karen wrote, I reflected on my experiences as a sagged payment consultant and executive, with international experience.

What I see is an issue of legacy and muscle memory – setting a pattern for the future.  Said another way – our history defines the boundaries of our future.

Asia did not have electronic payments.  I am sure did not want to embrace the globally dominate American solution.  Therefore, they had the opportunity to start fresh.  It is very much like what Spain went through, went they moved from cash to electronic card-based payments.  They bypassed the check.

Her article brings back memories of life in Belgium in the 90’s.  Writing a check was a rare occurrence.  Direct debit mandates, a MisterCash card and a Eurocard was all we needed to buy and enjoy life.  Electronic payments was the norm, paper checks were a rare oddity and cash, well yes there was a very present grey economy.

Here in the USA we developed our payment systems off the back of regional or state banks with acceptance networks limited to a local domain.  Moving to a national system required early adoption of a common national currency.  We then went on to replace IOUs with paper checks and store cards with credit cards.  In time we enhances the ACH system and developed support for remote deposit and check capture.

Why do we need to move the card into the wallet?  Why change habits that are comfortable and work?  Most of us drive to shop and therefore must have our drivers license.  We must carry a physical document with us.  We simply carry two or more ID-1 sized cards.

You make the statement and was once again reminded of times past.

“… universal mobile wallets and more often driven from merchant based applications that often incorporate loyalty and rewards, which to date still remain nascent in universal mobile wallets.”

When I produced this rendering, back in 1996, I was on stage talking about a world where leather and technology converged.  I imaged Bluetooth, NFC, secure elements, GPS and our various credentials converging into this personal device.  Those credentials grouped into: travel, identity, membership, loyalty and payments; easy to find and present.

When contactless payments were  introduced, in 2004, by Visa’s with PayWave and MasterCard’s PayPass; I argued why contactless cards – how can the issuer afford the extra dollar per card (cost of the antenna and inlay) and the merchant the extra 60 dollars to enable the NFC reader?  The way Issuer income works, “Interchange”, the consumer would need to spend more on that issuer’s card.  For the merchant to justify the necessary POS investment, meant the retailer believed the consumers would spend more, because it was “easier”.  Was Tap To Pay going to make me spend more.  Maybe for small ticket purchases, I may use cash less; but at the merchants expense!  We argued the cost of cash was more than the Merchant Discount.  Some agreed.  Many wondered what the blank are they trying to sell us!

Around the same time America was exploring this contactless experience, the European Payment Council and GSMA debated and ultimately offered an approach for mobile card based contactless payments https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/sites/default/files/KB/files/EPC220-08-EPC-GSMA-TSM-WP-V1.pdf .  Handset manufactures like Nokia had already added NFC Antenna’s to their mobile phones and mobile network operators, the MNO, saw the SIM as the secure element capable of holding payment credentials.

Some tried, the Trusted Service Manager as a service was developed and deployed.  The challenge, the economics of the model.  In this case the MNO saw revenue and wanted to charge fees to load the payment credential into the phone and better yet charge rent to store these payment cards in our phones.  Again I ask the question, by changing the way we pay, do I cause us to want to spend more? I think not!

Maybe some would argue, with  a credit card people am able to buy things today that they cannot afford.  Let them end up in debt.  This is true.  But then is debt  at 18% a good thing?  Europeans simply decided to establish a line of credit, as a feature of a Current Account, at reasonable interest rates.

We could go on and talk about how Apple saw the possibility of a 0.15% income stream from ApplePay based mobile payments and how the EMVCo tokenization framework evolved to support their desire to protect the Apple Brand.

What is clear, we could solve George’s problem and replace his Full Grain Vegetable Tanned Cow Leather leather wallet with a Mobile Wallet managed by Apple, Google, Samsung or …

Or, we could think about the consumer and what they really want?

As your article made clear, and so many others have shared, Asia leaped forward.  Be it AliPay or WeChat, the device, the mobile phone, became the consumers wallet, their method of engaging, shopping, learning and exploring.

We need to accept to simply replace what we are comfortable with, with something new; which does not enhance our experience, is simply not worth it!

Many of us, like Karen, would argue the experience of shopping is what the mobile phone can enhance and let the act of payment become the afterthought.  A simple click to say – yes, I agree to pay.

Amazon got it right with One Click.  Others, as the patent expires, are embracing the same technique to simplify payment to a friction-less act of satisfaction.  When my favorite stores offer me an mobile app designed to enhance my shopping experience, to thrill me with offers and entice me with things I want; then yes I will become more loyal, I will shop at their store more frequently and maybe even buy a few things I did not intend to buy.

Many years ago while attending conference of groceries  in Abu Dhabi – one of the speakers share an experience.  when that supermarket executive instructed each store to put the beer across from the diapers, the intended result occurred.  The husband, sent to get the diapers, ended up buying  a six pack too.

Maybe, like this experience reveals, if we focus on the consumer experience and on delighting them.  They will embrace change.

If there is no value why should we?

Years ago I prepared and published an idea.  I called it Cando.  I was still committed to the idea of the mobile wallet.  I was an early adopter of the smart phone and saw its potential.

 

Payment Card Construct and Dual Interface Deployment

Payment Card Construction

The discussion focused on the construction of the sandwich. Four layers. Clear front laminate to protect the ink, front with the banks design and brand logo, back with the banks back design and a clear laminate with the magnetic stripe integrated into it.

To enhance design additional layers may be added, such a metal foil.

These four sheets are then bonded together, at 120 degrees, in sheets of 21, 36 or 48 or other various sheet sizes. Next step punch out cards, add hologram and signature panel.

For a standard EMV card the next phase is to mill and embed the module with the chip inside. Last, the manufacturer typically loads the O/S & EMV application into the integrated circuit card.

When we move to dual interface caed, this process is modified to add an inlay, with the antenna embedded within. This inlay is inserted in the middle of the sandwich and during the embedded process the contacts exposed on the base of the module are connected to the antenna in the inlay.

Next step, personalization, when the appropriate data is loaded into the chip, along with the encoding of the magnetic strip and printing and/or embossing of the cardholders, name, expiry date, cvv2 and other information onto the card.

Contactless or Not That is a Question

Contactless NFC acceptance and dual interface issuance is all about the chicken and the egg. Who will go first? The merchant or the issuer? Each need each other. Both are wondering about the incremental value.

  • Faster transactions – Yes
  • Less cash – maybe
  • More revenue – good question!
In other parts of the world, transit and their choice of contactless, as the right answer to a more efficient fare collection solution is driving conversion. In other, markets a group decision to adopt or a desire to find the next great thing drives the market. Here in the USA, we have a less than successful history of contactless. Let’s not forget PayPass and PayWave, it was tried the middle of the last decade, to little or no success.
We have Google and the FinTech world looking to mobile payments as the next great adventure. Merchants, like Wal-Mart, are resisting NFC acceptance given their own plans for QR based wallets and desire to limit the sharing of data with competitors.

Given these questions and observations, one can only wonder.

DIY the Cyber Guy a conversation about Bitcoin and EMV 

https://www.voiceamerica.com/promo/episode/104814

A interesting discussion withDavid the the Cyber Guy.  We spoke of the inherent risk of Bitcoins and the essential issue of the secret and a BitCoin folders resoponsibility to make sure they never lose the secret.

We then wandering off to talk about EMV or Chip and Pin.

Always a pleasure to work with David.

Europe Led the way with EMV yet Europe appears to prefer cash

Europeans still love paying cash even if they don’t know it

Interesting to reflect on how much we allow Europe to lead as we think about EMV and the technology we use to secure our payment cards.  Maybe American’s need to embrace and take over the management of these key standards that drive an economy.