kirklennon

FYI: looks like there's a typo in your draft registration link (an extraneous v at the very end).

Apple Pay and similar services make payments more secure by completely hiding your actual card number from the merchant, meaning it is literally impossible to compromise your card number (can’t steal what’s not there in the first place) and it does so without introducing any new vulnerabilities or parties to the transaction.

Apple/Google Pay is an additional intermediary that allows you to pay for things on your devices using your credit card.

They’re not involved in the actually processing of payments though.

They charge fees over and above the credit cards

The merchant pays the same; they charge the issuing bank a fee. The Australian government already fretted about that years ago but got over it.

Yes, the next sentence is blatantly false.

Australia's government said on Monday it would bring Apple Pay, Google Pay and other digital payment services under the same regulatory umbrella as credit cards and other payments as part of legislation set to be introduced to parliament this week.

This is complete nonsense. Does the government even know what it’s saying? Apple Pay just refers to a credit or debit card loaded onto your device. It’s already fully covered by all regulations that apply to the cards themselves.

Hmm, with some lawsuits going years and years, seems like postponing decisions could save a lot because of the time value of money.

The specifics vary depending on exactly what is owed to whom and why, but in many of these cases the amount owed is subject to interest if, ultimately, it must be paid, or the money has actually already been provided but is held in escrow.

In the Meta case from earlier this year, the Irish regulator that imposed the fines did not think it warranted fines at all but they were overruled by a European organization. When the national regulator who investigated the offenses disagrees with the punishment, I think we can at the very least consider it a legitimate subject of dispute.

The article also says that Apple has fought for years against a 1.1 billion Euro fine in France. What the article leaves out is that Apple has been successful. Courts have already agreed with Apple and eliminated roughly 2/3 of that fine. Again, clearly there is a legitimate legal dispute over a fine if the legal system determines the regulators were, indeed, wrong.

It’s not like these companies are just refusing to pay their fines, as this article falsely implies. There are ongoing legal disputes. Most of Meta’s “unpaid” fines, for example, are from just six months ago and there are legitimate disagreements on them that are subject to appeal.

Apple has several thousand employees in Ireland. Ireland wanted to lure foreign investment by offering lower taxes and it worked. Ireland was happy. Apple was happy. Decades later, the EU decided it wasn’t happy.

You do realize that people also have the right of free association? The government needs to meet a very high standard before it can deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. Members of the public may refuse to do business with a person, or socially ostracize them, based on whatever information they have available.

Innocent until proven guilty bud.

That means the government shouldn't just start throwing everyone in jail at the first accusation. That doesn't mean the public can't or shouldn't act on the information.

I have not read her accusations but I don't think your criticism is really valid.

You can't publicly accuse someone if neither of you is a public figure. It just doesn't work that way. You need a platform that comes after at least one of the parties is famous.

Also, testimony from the victim is evidence. In the case of old sexual assault cases, it's quite often the only evidence. But if all you have is fuzzy memories from decades ago, you know that's not going to get you anywhere in court so why would you even attempt a legal claim?

The fact that an ostensible child sexual assault victim does not have additional evidence, or does not file a police report or civil suit, shouldn't be used to discount their claims.