Introduction: That magical half-second
You've definitely had this experience: when checking out at a convenience store, you take out your phone or bank card, tap it lightly on the counter, and with a "ding," the payment is complete. The whole process takes less than half a second.
But have you ever wondered what exactly happens in that fleeting half-second? What kind of "conversation" takes place between your phone and that POS terminal? How is your bank card information transmitted, verified, and authorized? Why can this seemingly casual "touch" securely complete a transaction worth thousands or even tens of thousands of yuan?
This video will take you deep into the world of contactless payments. We'll start with the most basic principles of electromagnetic physics, explore encryption technologies and security architectures, examine market trends, and culminate in cutting-edge AI-powered payment agents and biometric cards. Whether you're a tech-savvy user or an industry professional looking to stay informed, you'll find the answers you're looking for here.
Physical layer: Why is it necessary to "touch" it?
The core technology for contactless payment is NFC (Near Field Communication). The name itself reveals a key piece of information: "near field".
NFC operates in the 13.56 MHz radio frequency band, a globally recognized industrial, scientific, and medical band. However, unlike Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, which we are familiar with, NFC does not rely on long-distance electromagnetic wave propagation. It operates in a "near-field region" dominated by magnetic induction —in this region, energy is primarily stored in the magnetic field rather than radiated outwards.
What does this mean? Simply put, if someone wanted to eavesdrop on your payment information from a distance, they would need an extremely sensitive device to detect even the slightest leaks in the magnetic field. This is far more difficult than eavesdropping on Wi-Fi signals, which are specifically designed for long-distance transmission.
From a physics perspective, a frequency of 13.56 MHz corresponds to a wavelength of approximately 22 meters, and, in theory, the near-field boundary could extend to about 3.5 meters. However, in practical payment applications, the effective working range is strictly limited to within 4 centimeters. This is not a helpless compromise due to technical limitations, but rather a deliberate security design.
Why? Because the 4-centimeter limit creates a "physical intent threshold ." You must consciously bring your phone close to the terminal to trigger a payment. This dramatically reduces the risk of accidental touches or passive payments. In other words, distance itself acts as a security barrier.
So, how is data transmitted within those mere 4 centimeters? There's a clever mechanism called "load modulation ." Traditional contactless bank cards don't have built-in batteries—they're completely passive. When you bring the card close to the reader, the reader's magnetic field induces a voltage on the card's antenna. This voltage, after rectification and regulation, powers the chip on the card.
When a card wants to send data to the reader, it changes the load impedance on the antenna coil. This change is detected by the reader's antenna via mutual inductance between the two coils and is interpreted as a data signal. The whole process is like two people communicating through a shared spring—if one pulls hard, the other feels the vibration.
The situation is slightly different for smartphones. Because phones have their own batteries, they can use a technique called "active load modulation ." The phone actively drives a reverse signal, ensuring reliable communication even with a smaller antenna than specialized equipment. This is especially important for SoftPOS (Software Point of Sale) technology—when an ordinary consumer's phone becomes a point-of-sale terminal, active load modulation guarantees sufficient communication range.
Transaction process: a seven-step protocol within 0.5 seconds.
The physical layer solves the problem of "how to transmit bits," but what do these bits represent? How to ensure transaction security? This is the responsibility of the EMV (Europay, Mastercard, Visa) specification.
The EMV specification transforms simple data exchange into secure financial transactions. It defines a rigorous seven-step protocol, each step incorporating cryptographic verification and risk assessment. Industry standards require the entire process to be completed within 500 milliseconds—that's the "ding" sound you hear.
Step 1: Application Selection. When your phone enters the terminal's magnetic field range, the terminal first needs to solve one problem: you may have several cards in your wallet, which one should you use? The terminal will issue a SELECT command, requesting the phone to return a list of supported payment applications. The phone might say, "I have a Visa credit card, a Mastercard debit card, and a UnionPay card." The terminal then compares this list with its supported options and selects the one with the highest priority.
Step 2: Obtaining Processing Options. After selecting an application, a specific "kernel" takes over. Each card organization (Visa, Mastercard, UnionPay, etc.) has its own kernel that defines unique transaction logic. The terminal sends a GPO (Get Processing Options) command to the phone, and the phone returns a "map" indicating which data should be read.
Step 3: Record Reading. Following this map, the terminal reads static data stored in the phone's security chip, including the primary account (PAN), card expiration date, issuing bank public key certificate, etc. This information is prepared for subsequent authentication.
Step 4: Offline Data Authentication. This is a crucial step in preventing card cloning. The terminal verifies a dynamic digital signature generated in real time by the card's chip. Even if an attacker copies all the card's static data (card number, expiration date, etc.), they cannot forge this signature because it requires a unique private key on the chip. State-of-the-art solutions (CDA, Combined Dynamic Authentication) also bind this signature to the subsequent transaction password, ensuring that the authenticated data is the actual transaction data.
Step 5: Cardholder Verification. The system needs to confirm whether the person holding this phone is the cardholder. For small transactions (e.g., under £100), this step may be skipped entirely. For large transactions, a PIN code or biometric verification is required. In Apple Pay and Google Wallet, this verification occurs the moment you unlock your phone—your Face ID or fingerprint serves as proof of your identity. This method is called CDCVM (Consumer Device Cardholder Verification Method).
Step 6: Terminal Risk Management. The terminal assesses transaction risk in accordance with internal rules. Does the amount exceed the limit? Is this card on a blocklist? Is the network connection regular? Based on these judgments, the terminal decides whether to authorize online (contact the bank) or approve offline.
Step 7: Password Generation. Finally, and most crucially, the card uses a unique symmetric key derived from the issuing bank's master key, combined with parameters such as the transaction amount, date, and a random number, to generate an Application Request Password (ARQC). This password acts like a unique digital fingerprint—the issuing bank can verify it using the same mathematical methods to confirm that it is a genuine card, the transaction details have not been tampered with, and the transaction occurred at the claimed time and place.
Seven steps, 500 milliseconds, dozens of encryption operations—this is the story behind the "ding" sound.
Bank cards and mobile wallets: the same technology, different philosophies
Before delving into mobile wallets, we shouldn't forget the "natives" of contactless payments—contactless bank cards. In fact, the bank card with the contactless payment logo (four curved lines) in your wallet uses the same NFC technology and EMV protocol as Apple Pay and Google Wallet on your phone. However, they have subtle but essential differences in their design philosophies.
Bank cards: Simplicity equals reliability
The most significant advantage of contactless bank cards is that they don't rely on batteries or operating systems. They have no battery, don't need charging, and don't depend on an operating system—as long as the card is physically intact. The terminal is working correctly, and transactions can be made. The moment you bring the card close to the reader, the reader's magnetic field powers the card's chip, and the transaction begins immediately. This passive design means that while you might not be able to enter the subway if your phone is out of power, your bank card is less likely to fail at the device level.
From a security perspective, bank card keys are stored in a secure chip inside the card, essentially the same technology as the Secure Element in a mobile phone. From the moment the chip leaves the factory, it encapsulates the private key written by the issuing bank. These keys are typically designed to be non-exportable, with the security goal of making copying or extraction extremely costly. Even if the card is stolen, it is tough for attackers to copy the keys within the chip for cloning.
Hierarchical logic for cardholder verification
However, bank cards also have a significant "inconvenience": they don't know who you are.
Mobile wallets can verify "whoever is holding the phone is the owner" through Face ID or fingerprint, but bank cards lack this capability. Therefore, bank cards employ a tiered verification strategy based on the amount held:
Small transactions (PIN-free payments): Many countries and regions have a limit on PIN-free payments (such as the current limit of £100 in the UK). Transactions below this amount can usually be completed with a simple tap. However, whether PIN verification is triggered is also affected by the card issuer's risk control rules. For example, verification may still be required after the cumulative amount or number of consecutive transactions reaches a threshold.
Large transactions (PIN verification): When the limit is exceeded, the terminal will prompt you to enter a 4-to 6-digit PIN. This is slower than Face ID, but it is more universal—any terminal supports it.
Cumulative spending limit protection: Even if each transaction is within the PIN-free range, the system will still require a PIN after multiple consecutive transactions to prevent the card from being repeatedly stolen and used fraudulently.
It's worth noting that the UK's FCA has announced that, from March 2026, it will give card issuers greater flexibility to set contactless payment limits. This means that future limits may vary from institution to institution, and may even allow users to set their own limits. However, this is not an "automatic removal of limits"—most institutions are expected to maintain their current caps in the short term. Coupled with the rise of biometric payment cards (cards with built-in fingerprint sensors), large-amount contactless payments will become more common in the future.
This design reflects a pragmatic trade-off: speed is prioritized for small transactions, while security is prioritized for large transactions.
Where is the "upgrade" for mobile wallets?
If bank cards are secure enough, why use a mobile wallet?
The answer lies in three aspects:
Tokenization protection: When you add a bank card to Apple Pay, your phone stores a "Device Account Number" instead of the actual card number (PAN). Even if this token is compromised, attackers cannot use it to shop on other devices or online. Physical bank card numbers are fixed, making them much more vulnerable if compromised.
Biometric integration: Before each payment, your phone has already verified your identity via Face ID or fingerprint. This means that mobile wallets can skip PIN entry while providing higher security than "no verification"—the best of both worlds.
Centralized management: If you lose your phone, you can remotely freeze all the cards linked to it; if you lose your bank card, you need to report each card as lost individually.
Their common foundation
Whether it's a bank card or a mobile wallet, the moment they "touch" the terminal, they all execute the same EMV seven-step protocol: application selection, obtaining processing options, record reading, offline data authentication, cardholder verification, terminal risk management, and password generation. Although the terminal can infer whether the other party is a physical card or a mobile wallet based on specific data characteristics (such as AID, CVM results, etc.), regardless of the form, it will complete the encrypted communication using the same standardized EMV process.
This is precisely the elegance of NFC payments: the same infrastructure serves both the simplest plastic cards and the most advanced smartphones. You can choose the most suitable tool for the situation—bank cards are always reliable, and smartphones are more intelligent.
Security Architecture: Apple and Google's Different Choices
When EMV credentials were transferred from plastic cards to mobile phones, a fundamental question arose: where should the encryption keys be stored?
This issue has given rise to two drastically different security philosophies. Apple and Samsung opted for the Secure Element (SE) model, while Google pursued Host Card Emulation (HCE). Each choice has its advantages and disadvantages, profoundly impacting the security landscape of mobile payments.
Security Elements: Bank-Grade Hardware Fortress
The Secure Element is a tamper-resistant chip embedded in iPhones and Samsung phones. It is completely isolated from the central processor and operating system — it has its own secure operating system, independent memory, and a cryptographic coprocessor. You can think of it as a miniature vault installed in your phone.
When you add a bank card to Apple Pay, the bank generates a unique Device Account Number and writes it directly to this secure chip. From that moment on, the iOS system—not even Apple itself—cannot read this key. When you make a payment, iOS can only "request" the secure element to sign the transaction, then receive the cryptographic authorization signal returned.
The security advantage of this architecture is absolute. Even if your iPhone is jailbroken or malware gains root privileges, attackers cannot extract keys from the secure element. This is why Apple Pay is considered the most secure solution for mobile payments.
Host card emulation: The cost of flexibility
Google faced a different dilemma. In early Android phones, the Secure Element was often embedded in the SIM card and controlled by the mobile operator. Google didn't want to be controlled by the operator, so it took a different approach: HCE technology allowed the NFC controller to route data directly to the Android central operating system, bypassing the Secure Element.
However, this presents a fundamental security challenge: the Android operating system is a general-purpose computing environment that is theoretically vulnerable to malware. Storing long-term keys in such an environment is dangerous.
Google's solution is tokenization and time-limited keys (LUKs). Google Wallet doesn't store your real card number; instead, it stores a series of "one-time" keys, each valid only for a short period or a limited number of transactions. When these keys are exhausted or expire, the phone needs to connect to the Google cloud to obtain new ones.
The advantage of this design is its flexibility and openness, without relying on specific hardware. However, the trade-off is that payments will fail if your phone is offline for too long, and malware with Android root privileges could intercept these temporary keys.
To compensate for this weakness, modern Android devices typically use a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) —a physically isolated region within the central processor—to handle HCE logic. This is a compromise between pure software and complete hardware isolation.
The choice between these two models reflects the perpetual tension between security and openness. Apple opted for a "closed but unbreakable" approach, while Google chose an "open approach requiring additional protection ." For the average user, both are secure enough—the genuine concern lies in the new attack methods discussed in the next section.
Threats and Protection: An Arms Race Between Security Architects and Criminal Groups
As more and more funds flow through NFC channels, attack methods are also constantly evolving. The "Ghost Tap" attack that emerged at the end of 2024 raised the industry's level of vigilance to a new level.
Relay attack: turning 4 centimeters into 4,000 kilometers
Remember when we said that the NFC's 4-centimeter working distance is a security barrier? The purpose of a relay attack is to break through this barrier.
The attackers used two devices: a "mouse" device placed near the victim's bank card or mobile phone, and a "proxy" device placed near a remote payment terminal. These two devices were connected via a high-speed network (Wi-Fi or 5G) to relay ISO 14443 commands in real time. From the payment terminal's perspective, it "saw" a bank card right in front of it—even though the actual card might be thousands of miles away.
Ghost Payment: A More Covert Evolution
"Ghost payments" are an upgraded version of relay attacks. Attackers first steal victims' bank card credentials through phishing or malware, then link these credentials to Google Pay or Apple Pay on their own devices. Because the transactions originate from a "legitimate" wallet and generate a valid ARQC password, traditional fraud detection systems often fail to detect the anomaly.
Researchers have discovered that in 2024, more than 760 malicious Android applications exploited NFC permissions to launch attacks. These applications can simulate card readers to steal data from physical cards, simulate bank cards to make unauthorized payments, and even trick users into entering PIN codes by overlaying them onto the interface.
Distance Limiting Protocol: Combating Fraud with the Laws of Physics
The industry's response is a distance-limiting protocol. This protocol measures the round-trip time (RTT) of a signal with nanosecond precision. Since the speed of light is constant, any signal relayed through the network introduces additional latency—even a few milliseconds—which can cause the RTT to exceed the threshold, triggering a transaction rejection.
Implementing this protocol requires adding new hardware capabilities to the device and card/wallet. These upgrades are being rolled out gradually throughout the 2025-2026 update cycle. Meanwhile, AI-driven behavioral analytics (such as device fingerprint recognition and detection of impossible geographic movement speeds) are becoming an essential supplementary defense.
Security is never a one-time solution. It is a never-ending arms race—every evolution of attack methods drives the upgrading of defense technologies.
Public Transportation: A Touchstone for NFC Technology
The "tap-to-pay" feature at convenience stores is an everyday application of NFC payments; public transportation systems represent its ultimate stress test.
Imagine subway turnstiles during rush hour: processing 40 to 50 people per minute. This means the response time for each "tap" must be under 300 milliseconds—more stringent than the 500-millisecond standard in retail scenarios. Subway network environments are often unstable, requiring the system to support batch clearing after offline transactions. Adding to the complexity, unlike supermarkets, the system doesn't know the final fare when a passenger enters—you might ride one stop or all the way to the final destination. This necessitates a "swipe card upon entry/swipe card upon exit" mechanism to calculate the actual journey.
It is precisely these stringent requirements that make transportation systems a frontier for NFC technology innovation.
Comparison of major global transportation payment systems
system | area | Technical features | Innovation |
Oyster + Contactless | London | Open EMV and proprietary Oyster card in parallel | The first concept of "ticket price cap" |
Suica / PASMO | Japan | FeliCa (Sony proprietary agreement) | 0.1-second ultra-fast response; supports payment even when the device is powered off. |
Octopus | Hongkong | FeliCa variant | From transportation to convenience stores and parking lots |
SimplyGo | Singapore | Migrating from CEPAS to Open EMV | Complete the full open payment transformation by 2024 |
OMNY | New York | Purely open EMV | No dedicated card, relies entirely on bank cards/mobile wallets |
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)'s OMNY system represents the latest development. It completely abandons proprietary cards, accepting only open bank cards and mobile wallets. Even more innovative is its "fare cap" mechanism: for example, after 12 swipes within a week, the remaining trips are free. This logic isn't stored on the card; it's calculated in the backend based on your unique payment token—the system "recognizes" you without requiring you to register an account.
The traditional MetroCard ceased sales on December 31, 2025. On January 4, 2026, Westchester County's Bee-Line transit system also fully adopted OMNY, creating a seamless payment zone in New York City and its northern suburbs.
It's worth noting Japan's Suica/PASMO system. It uses Sony's FeliCa protocol—not strictly part of the ISO 14443 standard—but offers an astonishing 0.1-second response time. More importantly, it supports payments even when the device is powered off.
This raises a question that many people are concerned about: If your phone is out of battery, can you still use your card to enter the subway?
Payment when powered off: When the battery is depleted
The answer is: It depends on the device you are using and the situation.
iPhone: Some models are available.
Starting with iOS 12, Apple introduced the "Power Reserve" feature. When your iPhone battery is depleted or you manually shut down your iPhone, your Express Transit card can still be used for up to 5 hours.
How is this possible? Remember the Safety Element? It's a separate chip with its own low-power circuitry and small capacitors. When the central system is shut down, the Safety Element can operate independently—like a miniature "backup power supply."
Please note: This feature is limited to transit cards (such as Suica, OMNY, Beijing/Shanghai transit cards). Regular credit card payments—such as buying items at a convenience store—require Face ID verification, which cannot be performed when the device is powered off. You will need to enable the "Express Transit Card" mode in your settings beforehand.
Android: Basically not working
Because the HCE architecture relies on the phone's central operating system, Google Wallet will not work when the phone is powered off. A few devices using hardware security elements (such as Samsung Pay on some Samsung phones) may offer limited support, but this is not the case, and Google does not officially promise this feature.
Explanation of physical principles
Traditional plastic bank cards are entirely passive—the reader's magnetic field powers the chip, so it's "always online." In contrast, a phone's NFC chip requires an active response, which generates power. Apple's solution is to integrate a separate low-power circuit into the secure element, specifically designed for transportation scenarios—because being unable to enter a subway station is a real "emergency," while not being able to buy coffee is a minor inconvenience.
So if you're an iPhone user and frequently take the subway, remember to enable the Express Transit feature. It might save your life on a morning when your battery dies.
Market Structure: Duopoly and Regional Differences
In developed markets, competition in digital wallets has settled mainly into a duopoly between Apple and Google. However, these two giants are not on equal footing.
As of 2025, Apple Pay had approximately 64 million users in the United States, accounting for 49% of the mobile wallet market. Google Wallet, on the other hand, had approximately 35 million users, with a 30% market share. On the surface, the difference doesn't seem significant. However, what's truly astonishing is the difference in transaction activity: as of 2020, Apple Pay accounted for 92% of mobile debit wallet transactions in the United States.
What does this mean? While Google Wallet does have users, their usage frequency is far lower than that of Apple Pay users. iPhone users consider Apple Pay their native payment tool and rely on it extensively in their daily lives. Android users, on the other hand, have multiple payment options (Google Pay, Alipay, WeChat Pay, Samsung Pay, etc.), leading to fragmented usage.
The generational gap is even more pronounced. 73% of Gen Z digital wallet users use Apple Pay weekly. In contrast, less than 15% of Baby Boomers use digital wallets weekly—they prefer physical cards. This generational gap means that as Gen Z's purchasing power grows, the shift to "purely digital" payment experiences will accelerate.
The Chinese Market: The Battle Between QR Codes and NFC
China's payment landscape is an interesting "exception." However, NFC technology accounts for 68% of the global contactless payment market share; QR code payments still dominate in China.
Why? This isn't a technological choice, but rather a result of historical circumstances. When Alipay and WeChat Pay experienced explosive growth between 2013 and 2014, most Chinese merchants lacked NFC terminals, and most consumers' phones didn't support NFC. QR codes offered a "zero-barrier" solution: merchants needed only to print a QR code image, and consumers only required a phone capable of taking photos.
Once established, this first-mover advantage is difficult to shake. Although UnionPay's QuickPass (based on NFC) offers stronger security and faster speeds, its market share remains limited amid the deeply entrenched Alipay/WeChat Pay ecosystem.
However, the advancement of the digital yuan may change this landscape. The digital yuan supports offline payments—transactions can be completed even in situations with extremely weak network signals—which is precisely the inherent advantage of NFC. With the expansion of the central bank's digital currency pilot program, NFC's application in China may experience a second spring.
This case illustrates that the adoption of payment technology depends not only on the quality of the technology itself, but also on the existing ecosystem, user habits, and historical opportunities. Sometimes, "good enough" is more important than "better."
Merchant Perspective: Costs, Challenges, and Opportunities
For consumers, "tap" is convenient. For merchants, it's a complex cost-benefit calculation.
A common misconception is that "Apple Pay is more expensive for merchants." In reality, neither Apple nor Google charges merchants directly. Their revenue comes from a share of the card issuer's exchange fees. Merchants still pay the standard card processing fee.
So why do merchants find Apple Pay expensive? The reason lies in the card type. Users tend to link high-reward credit cards to their digital wallets. These cards themselves have significantly higher exchange fees than regular debit cards (US credit card exchange fees are 1.5%-2.5%, while debit card exchange fees are only 0.05% + $0.21). Therefore, the cost is borne by the card itself, not by NFC technology.
For small businesses, the real obstacle is the cost of hardware. For example, based on publicly available pricing in the US in 2025, a traditional Verifone or Ingenico terminal costs $250-$500. A complete POS system (such as Clover Station) could cost $1,000-$3,000. This is a significant expense for a small street-side shop.
SoftPOS: A Disruptive Solution
The most disruptive trend in 2025 will be SoftPOS (Software Point of Sale). This technology allows merchants to download an app on a regular consumer smartphone and use the phone's NFC chip to receive payments directly.
What does this mean? Hardware capital expenditure drops to zero. A food delivery rider, a pop-up shop owner, a small vendor in an emerging market—all you need is an NFC-enabled phone to accept bank card payments. The global SoftPOS market was already worth over $420 million in 2025 and is projected to grow to $2.93 billion by 2035.
Of course, the security of SoftPOS is a concern. It relies on software authentication and "white-box encryption" to protect the PIN code entered on the consumer-grade mobile phone screen. The PCI MPoC standard has set strict authentication requirements for this. However, compared with professional terminals, SoftPOS still faces a higher risk of application-level malware.
Bottlenecks of legacy systems
While front-end "tap-to-pay" transactions are lightning-fast, many large retailers' backend systems lag. Many systems are designed for end-of-day bulk settlements and struggle to meet modern demands such as real-time membership points and instant fraud detection. Upgrading these systems requires deep integration with the payment kernel—a high-risk, high-cost undertaking for retailers using 15-year-old software. The result is a fragmented user experience: payments can be completed with a tap, but membership cards may still require barcode scanning.
Future Outlook: From Payments to Invisible Interactions
Looking ahead to 2026 and beyond, the act of "paying" itself may become increasingly "invisible".
Biometric payment cards are emerging. These cards embed fingerprint sensors directly and are self-powered by the magnetic field energy of the card reader. Fingerprint verification is completed on the card, and once successful, the card sends a "verified" signal to the terminal, allowing large transactions without a PIN code. This means that contactless payments are no longer subject to spending limits (the UK will remove the £100 cap on March 19, 2026). Market forecasts predict that this sector will grow from $290 million in 2024 to $5.7 billion in 2030, representing an average annual growth rate of 64%.
AI-powered proxy payments represent an even more imaginative direction. Imagine this: your personal AI assistant negotiates purchases on your behalf (such as booking the cheapest flight or ordering coffee), then automatically executes the payment using tokenized credentials. You don't even need to "touch" anything—the AI does everything for you.
But this also raises new trust issues: How to distinguish between user-initiated payments and payments initiated by AI agents? How to ensure that AI operates within predefined spending limits? How should regulators respond when non-fintech companies (Apple, Google) provide financial services through AI agents? These questions are becoming new challenges for policymakers.
Value-added services (VAS) redefine the point of sale from a simple transaction checkpoint into a data-rich interactive node. Apple VAS and Google Smart Tap protocols allow a single tap to complete payment, loyalty points, and receipts simultaneously. Merchants can push personalized offers in real time at the moment of payment, building highly accurate user profiles. Of course, this also raises privacy concerns—every tap leaves a data trail.
Conclusion: The eternal tension between convenience and security
From magnetic stripe cards to chip cards, and from chip cards to "tap to pay," the evolution of payment technology has always been moving in one direction: faster, more convenient, and more frictionless.
But convenience never comes free. New security challenges accompany every technological advancement. NFC's 4-centimeter operating distance is a barrier, but relay attacks attempt to bypass it. Secure Elements offer bank-grade protection but limit openness. HCE brings flexibility but expands the attack surface.
This tension will never disappear. It drives the evolution of technology—from distance-limiting protocols to AI-driven fraud detection, from biometric cards to quantum-secure encryption (addressing the threat posed by future quantum computers to existing encryption systems).
As consumers, all we can do is understand the principles and limitations of these technologies. The next time you tap your phone on the checkout counter, you'll know that behind that "ding" sound lies a sophisticated collaboration of electromagnetic physics, cryptographic mathematics, financial protocols, and security architecture—and a never-ending game of offense and defense.
And this is the story of modern payments.
References
1. ISO/IEC, "ISO/IEC 14443: Identification cards — Contactless integrated circuit cards — Proximity cards," International Organization for Standardization, 2018
2. NFC Forum, "NFC Forum Technical Specifications," NFC Forum, Inc., 2024
3. EMVCo, "EMV Contactless Specifications for Payment Systems, Book C-8," EMVCo LLC, 2024
4. Apple Inc., "Apple Pay security and privacy overview," Apple Support, 2025
5. Thales Group, "What is Host Card Emulation (HCE)?" Thales, 2024
6. GlobalPlatform, "Host Card Emulation – Key Technologies to Secure Cloud-based Mobile Payments," GlobalPlatform, 2024
7. ThreatFabric, "Ghost Tap: New cash-out tactic with NFC Relay," ThreatFabric Blog, November 2024
8. Bleeping Computer, "New Ghost Tap attack abuses NFC mobile payments to steal money," November 2024
9. Zimperium, "Tap-and-Steal: The Rise of NFC Relay Malware on Mobile Devices," Zimperium zLabs, 2024
10. Apple Inc., "Use Express Mode with transit cards, passes, and keys in Apple Wallet," Apple Support, 2025
11. Sony Corporation, "FeliCa Technology," Sony Global, 2024
12. MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority), "MTA to Sunset MetroCard Sales at End of the Year," MTA Press Release, November 30, 2025
13. Westchester County Government, "OMNY Officially Launches on Bee-Line Buses January 4," Westchester.gov.com, December 2025
14. OMNY, "Weekly Fare Cap," omny.info, 2025
15. NCHStats, "Apple Pay vs Google Pay in the US 2025 - Usage Statistics and Market Share," North American Community Hub, 2025
16. AppleInsider, "Apple Pay accounted for 92% of US mobile wallet debit transactions in 2020, study says," August 2021
17. Capital One Shopping, "Apple Pay Statistics (2025): Users, Market Share & Growth Rate," 2025
18. MoneyTransfers, "Amazing Apple Pay Statistics That Will Surprise You," 2025
19. PYMNTS, "Nearly 80% of Gen Z Consumers Use Digital Wallets," 2024
20. Global Market Insights, "Contactless Payment Market Size & Share Report," March 2025
21. UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), "Statement on Contactless Limits," December 19, 2025
22. ResearchAndMarkets, "Biometric Payment Cards Market to Grow at 64.3% CAGR During 2025-2030 to Reach $5.7 Billion," Business Wire, December 2025
23. GlobeNewswire, "Biometric Payment Cards Represent a $5.8 Billion Market by 2030, Rising at a 64.7% CAGR," April 2025
24. Research Nester, "SoftPOS Market Size & Share Analysis Report, 2025-2035," September 2025
25. Host Merchant Services, "Current US Interchange Rates Explained: What Merchants Need to Know," 2025
26. Checkout.com, "How the Durbin Amendment Impacts Card Swipe Fees," 2024
27. US Federal Register, "Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing," November 2023
28. GoDaddy, "A guide to POS system costs in 2025," GoDaddy Blog, 2025
29. KoronaPOS, "Clover POS Pricing in 2025: Hidden Costs, Fees, Features & Plans," 2025
30. AtaDistance, "Transit Gate Evolution: why tap speed matters," June 2020
31. Wikipedia, "Near-field communication," Wikimedia Foundation, accessed January 2026
32. Wikipedia, "ISO/IEC 14443," Wikimedia Foundation, accessed January 2026
33. Wikipedia, "OMNY," Wikimedia Foundation, accessed January 2026
34. Wikipedia, "Bee-Line Bus System," Wikimedia Foundation, accessed January 2026
35. CYNTE Technologies LLC, "EMV Evolution: A Journey through History and the New EMV Contactless Kernel Specification C-8," Medium, 2024
36. RFID Card, "NFC Payment Distance Explained: From Theory to Real-World Performance," rfidcard.com, 2025
37. Straits Research, "NFC Payment Devices Market Size, Share & Trend Forecast by 2033," 2025
38. Fortune Business Insights, "Contactless Payment Market Size, Share | Growth Report [2032]," 2025
39. IMARC Group, "Contactless Payment Market Size And Trends Report | 2033," 2025
40. Mastercard, "The future of payments: Six industry trends shaping 2026," mastercard.com, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment