Ah. I've never come across this in the US - every bank I've seen also has a website. The only thing the apps do that the website won't is mobile check deposit typically.
They’re API used to work via just providing a VIN however that also allowed remote control so you could just run through all the VINs Nissan uses and turn on remote heating, etc.
This was reported in the media which caused Nissan to start locking down their API something fierce.
Then the three years free of many services have started to expire for most vehicles, so locking it down more became a potentially profitable exercise so now they actual have development work against it.
They generally pre-auth for either £20 or £40 and then update the amount post-transaction.
In terms of PIN check, the card is just declined with an appropriate error message because you can’t insert it and the next time you use a contactless machine it asks for the card to be inserted and a PIN entered.
For petrol (gas) pumps in the UK it generally auths either £1 or £99.
Makes sense and matched my understanding of the pay at pump preauth for a fixed amount.
I guess the issue then becomes relying on contactless (only) without the hardware for full EMV with PIN, as then someone whose card has been used contactless one too many times can't charge, and potentially ends up stuck there.
It does feel like contactless is a good convenience measure, but probably isn't ideal as the only mechanism on a reader for charging infrastructure.
Unrelated to this, but not being able to initiate charging without internet access (for online auth of cards, and the ones that can only be used online) also is likely to become an issue in rural areas, as well as give quite a few resilience issues if cloud infrastructure isn't available, or internet backhaul from the area is disrupted. Even once power is restored after a storm, if comms are down (like with Storm Arwen), this doesn't sound ideal for EV charging...
I only have experience with Shell, Morrisons, and Tesco pay-at-pump stations. In all of those, you have to physically insert your card and type in your PIN; contactless does not exist.
Children shouldn't be on the internet, just like they shouldn't be left to cycle on motorways. Or enter contracts and take on debt. Or fly jet planes. Or be left alone in a workshop or kitchen. Etc.
We restrict their activities because their judgement is limited, and this most certainly extends to Internet access, which ought to be adult-only. It should be seen as extremely irresponsible parenting to leave your kids online. This is the answer to what to do to 'keep kids safe' - the same things parents have done for millennia. Restrict their activities.
No one who 'gets' the internet wants the government's opinion of what is 'safe' applied to it. The only reason this sells is because lazy fucks of parents who want the Internet as a substitute for interaction that they owe their children. Or other activities that they could organise which would be more suitable for children. This is too much effort for them apparently - just dump little Johnny and Lucy in the corner with their iPads!
Of course access to unlimited information and communication is dangerous for children - they don't know how to handle it, they have limited experiences of trust and how to manage that, such things only come with growth, involved parenting and repeated interactions over the years. Again, the Internet is no substitute for that, and only adults can reasonably manage their lives online.
Exactly. Making it about the kids makes it difficult for people to protest or object. I had an awkward time on our very technical team call yesterday when I ranted a bit about the bill passed. Senior engineers wanted me to 'move along' because somehow they believe that it is better for their own kids.
I think this could serve a good rule-of-thumb test. Whatever measure is being taken, would it stop (or have stopped) Prince Andrew (and similar)? If not, the measure is at best ineffective and at worst not intended to stop them. We can call this the Prince Andrew Test..
They are using the concept of protecting children as a smokescreen. Speak to anyone that works in Trust & Safety teams and they'll tell you that countries like the UK are already under-resourced and overwhelmed with the volume of CSAM they are currently dealing with. This bill was never about protecting children.
