Contactless limit to rise to £100.

gsmh

jbuchanangb said:

I have just tried again to activate my Barclaycard in GooglePay to be told that this card is not available for use in stores. If GooglePay can't handle Barclaycard what hope is there for it? So I will stick with plastic.

You could get a free Curve card and add that to Google Pay. You can then link your Barclaycard to your Curve app. I do that with my Capital One card which doesn't support NFC payments.

Sea_Shell

It's much easier to hold the card against the devise than try and hover and guess how close it needs to be.   I've previously held it up the reader and not got the beep, until it was almost touching, so might as well just touch it!!!

Call me a thicko if you like, if it makes you feel better.

If your worried about hygiene, then sanitise your own cards/hands regularly.

As to the £100 limit, I think it's too high.   £50 should be adequate for most day to day spends, and if doing a big shop, hardly a hardship to put a pin in.

gsmh

Sea_Shell said:

Call me a thicko if you like, if it makes you feel better.

If your worried about hygiene, then sanitise your own cards/hands regularly.

I hope you're not accusing me of labelling you with that very derogative word. I don't even know you! 

I'm not at all bothered about the hygiene aspect of contactless - I just try and use the technologies in a way I deem correct. 

Zanderman

gsmh said:

Zanderman said:

In defence of the concept of touching the card reader with the card when paying contactlessly it's worth saying that, low risk covid transmission notwithstanding, why not do this? What's the problem?

It is easier, imho, to touch the card on the reader than to hover it above. It ensures the card is close enough without having to judge whether it is. 

And, any imagined hygiene issues aside, it does no harm.

I don't quite get the apparent surprise being expressed by many comments above.  There's no obligation to hover!

I suppose it tends to suggest those who touch their card on the reader don't really understand how NFC works. It's like watching people scanning bar codes at self-checkouts. Many haven't a clue what's going on and there is a certain generation that absolutely resists learning about things to make their lives easier. I understand when the customer is not particularly bright (no disrespect intended) but I have worked with people who have degrees and higher who are just as inept. The time for excuses is rapidly coming to an end.

gsmh said:

Sea_Shell said:

Call me a thicko if you like, if it makes you feel better.

If your worried about hygiene, then sanitise your own cards/hands regularly.

I hope you're not accusing me of labelling you with that very derogative word. I don't even know you! 

I'm not at all bothered about the hygiene aspect of contactless - I just try and use the technologies in a way I deem correct. 

You are, in your opening line replying to me querying why anyone would think touching the card on the reader is wrong, suggesting that anyone doing this might not understand how NFC works.  You then go on to stress this concept and associate it with people not learning or understanding.  Which is implying, very strongly, that you think that some will think that anyone doing this is a bit thick, and, weirdly start generalising about people with degrees not always being the brightest (which has little to do with the matter in hand - but, btw, I do have a couple of them).  

It could equally be argued the other way round. That those touching the reader know perfectly well that they don't need to.  But they do it because it is easier than hovering in roughly the right place.  Touching is easier, unambiguous, definite.  Hovering sometimes means shifting about a bit.  So, it could equally be argued that those who consider the touch brigade are thick are, in reality, themselves being a bit thick, not realising that touching is actually easier and quicker, a definite, instant, connection.  The touchers, on that argument, are the cleverer ones.

The upshot, I would argue, of this is that there is no definite 'correct' way. If it works it works.  Contactless works by hovering.  Sure.  It also works by touching.  It's often quicker to touch as it takes less effort.  It certainly doesn't imply stupidity.

gsmh

Zanderman said:

You are, in your opening line replying to me querying why anyone would think touching the card on the reader is wrong, suggesting that anyone doing this might not understand how NFC works.  You then go on to stress this concept and associate it with people not learning or understanding.  Which is implying, very strongly, that you think that some will think that anyone doing this is a bit thick, and, weirdly start generalising about people with degrees not always being the brightest (which has little to do with the matter in hand - but, btw, I do have a couple of them).  

I deliberately chose my words very carefully. 'Might' and 'suggest' are qualifiers and show possibilities rather than fact. Telling someone categorically how they are thinking is entirely different and if you do that, you must accept it when the other person denies they are thinking in that way. As I said I don't know you, I know nothing about you so it would be unacceptable for me to cast aspersions on your intellectual prowess. I can't believe how you are turning my somewhat anecdotal comments into an argument! All I was doing was suggesting why some might have views on the way people use their contactless devices or cards. I really have no desire to continue this pseudo debate. 

YBR

masonic said:

I have no problem with a £100 limit. However, it would be good if people had an option to set their own lower limit just as they can temporarily freeze cards from many issuers.

I don't agree with being able to spend (lose if fraudulent) £100 with absolutely no verification, it's really not a trivial amount as the initial contactless limits were. I would rather the amount were kept low as the reward for skimming cards is now enough to encourage criminals to attempt it more seriously.

The option set my own lower limit would be second best, but still acceptable, in my view.

Zanderman

gsmh said:

Zanderman said:

You are, in your opening line replying to me querying why anyone would think touching the card on the reader is wrong, suggesting that anyone doing this might not understand how NFC works.  You then go on to stress this concept and associate it with people not learning or understanding.  Which is implying, very strongly, that you think that some will think that anyone doing this is a bit thick, and, weirdly start generalising about people with degrees not always being the brightest (which has little to do with the matter in hand - but, btw, I do have a couple of them).  

I deliberately chose my words very carefully. 'Might' and 'suggest' are qualifiers and show possibilities rather than fact. Telling someone categorically how they are thinking is entirely different and if you do that, you must accept it when the other person denies they are thinking in that way. As I said I don't know you, I know nothing about you so it would be unacceptable for me to cast aspersions on your intellectual prowess. I can't believe how you are turning my somewhat anecdotal comments into an argument! All I was doing was suggesting why some might have views on the way people use their contactless devices or cards. I really have no desire to continue this pseudo debate. 

Ok, don't then!  But that won't alter the oddity of your generalising about people's abilities, anecdotal or not.

But, if you feel inclined, please explain what your line 

The time for excuses is rapidly coming to an end. 

was all about.  That line seemed very odd.

gsmh

Zanderman said:

But, if you feel inclined, please explain what your line 

The time for excuses is rapidly coming to an end. 

was all about.  That line seemed very odd.

I worked in IT in an educational context for a couple of decades, where my job was to coordinate and facilitate the use of IT by colleagues in a school. It was clear to me that some colleagues claimed not to understand the tech and did not want to use it - to the detriment of their students. What they wouldn't do, however, was learn how to use it. They would rather pretend it wasn't there or that they were incapable of learning how to use it. We're talking about highly educated people too. I found it negligent, TBH, that teachers would be so happy in their comfort zones that they would try and force students into them too. I suppose that experience has coloured my views on why some people refuse to understand or use the technology around them. My experience has given me a real-world understanding of this over many years, so I can't really argue with someone that this experience is somehow invalid or debatable. 

The time for excuses is rapidly coming to an end refers to how people will have to embrace technology, kicking and screaming if need be, otherwise they will not be able to function in a 21st Century society and all they will have left is to complain about it. We see it on here when people proclaim they have no mobile phone so can't verify something their bank wishes them to verify. I'm sure some people would be happier painting on cave walls.

I see these forum posts as a starting point for conversation, which will inevitably diverge from the original post - just like conversation in the real world. I am entitled to put forward my views, you are entitled to argue against what I and others say - but we each have an equal right to state those views and choose whether we respond to someone who wishes to nit-pick about what we say. Tom cats we surely are!

Shakin_Steve

So people who don't own a mobile are cave painters? 

gsmh

Shakin_Steve said:

So people who don't own a mobile are cave painters? 

Lol! I didn't actually say that, but maybe some are and maybe some aren't. Maybe some are nuclear scientists and speak several languages. Who knows. Stop being so literal!