From: plmoses@unix.cc.emory.edu (Paul L. Moses)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 93 23:11:24 PDT
To: szabo@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Digicash
Message-ID: <9308230610.AA02065@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I dont see that a "reverse" ATM card (ie, one that was "charged" with
money to spend) poses any greater risk to the bearer, IF some kind of
authorization code/check is built into the card.  
What I am hazy on is how such an authorization could exist while avoiding
the problem of creating a dossier.  If the individual user could encode
his own PIN on the card without telling the bank, that would do it.
Or, the bank could know the PIN but if the Retailer's transaction software
never *records* the PIN, then there will be no privacy problem...since
there will be nothing to cross check against the bank's records.
The retailer is happy cos he has HIS data (item sold, amount, date, etc);
the consumer is protected, and the bank is not involved at all.
Eh?