The blog posits that, given the very slow entry of NFC onto the Western stage, a payment services provider could tie the biometric to one or more payment methods (right hand for Visa debit, left hand for MasterCard credit?). That’s a tall order. Biometrics have had scaling and management problems that run across reader types and use cases. Performance matters and what happens if that pattern changes or the reader rejects you? Managing biometric credentials at scale is tough.
And then there’s the creepy factor. Are we ready for palms to be a payment token? Better to keep that in my smartphone,many would say. If someone steals the phone, given how attached to people are to their palms, many would vote to let the thief can have it. It beats the alternative.
Unlike phone wallets, which aren’t obviously superior to existing solutions like credit cards, a biometric-based payment system is not only more secure than existing cash alternatives, it actually has the potential to make the ones we already use more secure.
The unique pattern of veins in your hand can’t be stolen, for example, and neither can your credit card if you choose to leave it at home. A biometric marker could also be used as a second authentication factor for existing payment systems, virtually eliminating credit card fraud at physical stores.
If the slow rollout of NFC holds any lessons, it’s that breaking the monopoly of the existing payment system is difficult, especially when merchants bear the cost. But a biometric identification system could be a unique identifier that might justify its additional expense for some vendors. If you think waving your phone to pay for something is convenient enough to convince you to go to one coffee shop versus another, imagine how thrilled people will be to simply raise their hand?
