[app_Developer]

I already do. I don't use Google and I use bb10 and the bank website if the bank does not provide all the features in the bank app.
If more people were like me and refused to be bullied into submission, especially since smartphones are not vital (they did not even exist 15 years ago) we would not be here.
And it will get far worse with IoT.

I guess what I'm asking is if your bank had features in the Apps that aren't in the website, what would you do?

You said you won't be bullied. So what would you do?

[sorinv]

I guess what I'm asking is if your bank had features in the Apps that aren't in the website, what would you do?

You said you won't be bullied. So what would you do?

I would talk to the bank. I certainly would not switch from bb10 to android because of that.
That's precisely what Chen and google want you to do: switch to android.

My bank (TD) has a bb10 app, but the website is better. The app does not have all the website features, not viceversa.
Let's get real here. How many cheques do you deposit per month that you can't do it at an ATM?
If you have that many then you'd better talk to the bank and ask them to include the feature in their app AND website.

However, I remain of the opinion that paper cheques are so 20th. Century. Obviously this should be done electronically, not by taking pictures with your phone and uploading them through an app.

Once Google controls even your bank, everything and everyone is under one single umbrella and much easier to monitor.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35750127?...eporting-story

[brookie229]

You can't make deposits using website. Only the app.

Two words: Direct Deposit. (for me, anyway).

[app_Developer]

Two words: Direct Deposit. (for me, anyway).

Depends on your age and things. I have kids who do activities so we get checks from soccer teams and fundraising and when we pay for t-shirts for the robot league and this and that. That's a bunch of checks. Then rent checks are usually physical checks with new tenants. Sometimes tenants never set up e-bills. It happens.

Mobile check deposit is an enormously popular feature where I work. We're constantly improving it because it is very well used.

[sorinv]

Depends on your age and things. I have kids who do activities so we get checks from soccer teams and fundraising and when we pay for t-shirts for the robot league and this and that. That's a bunch of checks. Then rent checks are usually physical checks with new tenants. Sometimes tenants never set up e-bills. It happens.

Mobile check deposit is an enormously popular feature where I work. We're constantly improving it because it is very well used.

Fine. Why not aslo implement it through the website? What is the problem?

[Ronindan]

I already do. I don't use Google and I use bb10 and the bank website if the bank does not provide all the features in the bank app.
If more people were like me and refused to be bullied into submission, especially since smartphones are not vital (they did not even exist 15 years ago) we would not be here.
And it will get far worse with IoT.

so in other words your bank did nothing about adding features or making their smartphone app available in BB10 even though you talked to them - if you actually talked to them.

[Ronindan]

I would talk to the bank. I certainly would not switch from bb10 to android because of that.
That's precisely what Chen and google want you to do: switch to android.

My bank (TD) has a bb10 app, but the website is better. The app does not have all the website features, not viceversa.
Let's get real here. How many cheques do you deposit per month that you can't do it at an ATM?
If you have that many then you'd better talk to the bank and ask them to include the feature in their app AND website.

However, I remain of the opinion that paper cheques are so 20th. Century. Obviously this should be done electronically, not by taking pictures with your phone and uploading them through an app.

Once Google controls even your bank, everything and everyone is under one single umbrella and much easier to monitor.

GCHQ boss: Tech firms should co-operate over encryption - BBC News

did you actually talked to TD about adding features to their BB10 app just like you suggest people do? If you did provide us proof of that actual conversation like an email from TD indicating they are complying with your wishes.

[app_Developer]

Fine. Why not aslo implement it through the website? What is the problem?

The browser is limited in the encryption we can use and the auth scheme we can use. Our approach is to keep higher risk transactions in the apps where we have more flexibility in these things.

Also the user experience for this would be very rough in the website. We can't directly control the camera and detect when the check is properly framed and in focus.

[sorinv]

I have been out of the country for 8 months.
They provide the feature, they just have a reduced number of entries in the app compared to the website.

For me the website works better than the app.
I can use the website instead of the app on my phone. I think it is more secure anyway, so I do not need to ask them for anything. I like it this way.

[sorinv]

The browser is limited in the encryption we can use and the auth scheme we can use. Our approach is to keep higher risk transactions in the apps where we have more flexibility in these things.

Also the user experience for this would be very rough in the website. We can't directly control the camera and detect when the check is properly framed and in focus.

So you are telling me that a smartphone is more powerful than a computer that has the same sensors as the phone and more powerful processor, GPU and more RAM!?!
Really?
I believe that you have more flexibility to datamine and monitor me through the phone app than through the website on the phone or on the PC, but that is not in my interest, only in yours.

Besides, the higher risk transactions are available on the website.
I can move my investment money between accounts. That's a lot more risky than uploading the picture of a checque worth a few thousand dollars at best.
So, no, I don't buy what you are writing.
The website has the same or more powerful features (in terms of dollar amounts). than the app. I have been using the website for 20 years without any problems.

[app_Developer]

So you are telling me that a smartphone is more powerful than a computer that has the same sensors as the phone and more powerful processor, Gpu and more RAM!?!
Really?
I believe that you have more flexibility to datamine and monitor me through the phone app than through the website on the phone or on the PC, but that is not in my interest, only in yours.

No, I'm saying that a webapp is limited as compared to a native app. Some banks do native apps for PCs, That would work, but implementing this feature in a browser is something many have considered and rejected.

Every bank that has an app has clear terms and conditions that disclose how information is tracked and used. If you don't trust your bank's app I would suggest you shouldn't trust their website or ATM's either. In fact you probably don't want to use their debit or credit cards either, right?

[sorinv]

No, I'm saying that a webapp is limited as compared to a native app. Some banks do native apps for PCs, That would work, but implementing this feature in a browser is something many have considered and rejected.

Every bank that has an app has clear terms and conditions that disclose how information is tracked and used. If you don't trust your bank's app I would suggest you shouldn't trust their website or ATM's either. In fact you probably don't want to use their debit or credit cards either, right?

It's not the same. I trust them to do the banking transactions, after which they have no business accessing my phone. The app has permanent access to my phone's files, location, camera, etc.. That is a security risk. The browser doesn't because I deny it access to my files and I turn off cookies before and after I access my bank.
It's not just the bank that can use the app's access features. Somebody can break into the app. It's not like banks have not been hacked before.
The less exposure you give anyone to your files, phone, location, the smaller the chance to be hacked.
That's another reason why using a popular OS and the cloud is not good for your security. That's why I only use Linux and bb10 and local storage.
It's common sense.

[sorinv]

And here I thought smartphones were meant to make things more convenient for its users.

only in crackberry.

Exactly! Don't you see the irony in what you are writing?
I am asking for more flexibility for the user. Those whom we pay for services should offer us the same features and services on multiple platforms: PCs, laptops, and phones.
You are actually advocating that we all give up our phones and PCs and move to Google play services on android phones because Conite's bank uses Google play services and therefore some banking features cannot be accessed through a PC or BB10 phone browser. How is that convenient for the user?

[sorinv]

did you actually talked to TD about adding features to their BB10 app just like you suggest people do? If you did provide us proof of that actual conversation like an email from TD indicating they are complying with your wishes.

I did not have to do it with my bank because I did not need to, but I did it with livestation for livestreaming of BBC World News anywhere in the world. They did not want to support BB10 and the Playbook anymore, but now they do.
I can stream BBC World News anywhere in the world in HD on my Playbook and on all my BB10 phones for 2 dollars per month: in Japan, in Indonesia, in New Zealand, in Australia, in the browser with the cookies turned off.
If I try to do it on my Macbook in Safari or Firefox, I can't unless I accept cookies.
Sometimes you need to try. You might succeed.

[Ronindan]

I did not have to do it with my bank because I did not need to, but I did it with livestation for livestreaming of BBC World News anywhere in the world. They did not want to support BB10 and the Playbook anymore, but now they do.
I can stream BBC World News anywhere in the world in HD on my Playbook and on all my BB10 phones for 2 dollars per month: in Japan, in Indonesia, in New Zealand, in Australia, in the browser with the cookies turned off.
If I try to do it on my Macbook in Safari or Firefox, I can't unless I accept cookies.
Sometimes you need to try. You might succeed.

Okay do you have an email from BBC stating that they added all of these features to their BB10 app because you discussed it with them? And not some generic thank you note from them. :-)

[app_Developer]

It's not the same. I trust them to do the banking transactions, after which they have no business accessing my phone. The app has permanent access to my phone's files, location, camera, etc.. That is a security risk. The browser doesn't because I deny it access to my files and I turn off cookies before and after I access my bank.
It's not just the bank that can use the app's access features. Somebody can break into the app. It's not like banks have not been hacked before.
The less exposure you give anyone to your files, phone, location, the smaller the chance to be hacked.
That's another reason why using a popular OS and the cloud is not good for your security. That's why I only use Linux and bb10 and local storage.
It's common sense.

So I can understand that perspective. Now look at it, though, from the bank's perspective. We aren't comfortable that we can offer check deposit safely or effectively through the browser. Everyone would love to, because our customers love that feature, but I don't know of any major bank that has been able to do it through the browser.

Now one other major bank that I know of did make a native PC app years ago for these types of transactions. If we were all to do that, however, we'd do it for Windows and Mac. We wouldn't be able to support it for Linux because it wouldn't be cost effective at all.

You feel that using unpopular operating systems is a security advantage for you. I can respect that. However, using unpopular systems means you can't then expect full support from your bank or anyone else. Everyone wants an ATM in their neighborhood market area, but it's not cost effective to have our own ATMs in every little market area on earth.

[tangozulu]

I already do. I don't use Google and I use bb10 and the bank website if the bank does not provide all the features in the bank app.
If more people were like me and refused to be bullied into submission, especially since smartphones are not vital (they did not even exist 15 years ago) we would not be here.
And it will get far worse with IoT.

I think you have a very good point with retail apps. I have long complained about apples closed system yet google/android is quickly becoming worse. My bank has made literally hundreds of dollars off me. Perhaps I should request they drop any google service requirements on their apps.
Other apps should allow a paid version google services free.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

I think you have a very good point with retail apps. I have long complained about apples closed system yet google/android is quickly becoming worse. My bank has made literally hundreds of dollars off me. Perhaps I should request they drop any google service requirements on their apps.
Other apps should allow a paid version google services free.

Posted via CB10

Just because an app uses a Google Play Services api for expediency, does not immediately imply that the app becomes inherently "insecure".

[app_Developer]

I think you have a very good point with retail apps. I have long complained about apples closed system yet google/android is quickly becoming worse. My bank has made literally hundreds of dollars off me. Perhaps I should request they drop any google service requirements on their apps.
Other apps should allow a paid version google services free.

So what about the features that play services give us? You're asking developers to leave behind a lot of important and useful features just because a tiny number of users don't have play services installed.

How do you convince developers that this makes sense?

[sorinv]

Okay do you have an email from BBC stating that they added all of these features to their BB10 app because you discussed it with them? And not some generic thank you note from them. :-)

No. It's livestation who provides the service not BBC. I did have a long email exchange explain to them that I pay for the service so they don't have to data mine me by forcing me to allow cookies.
You can test for yourself to see that you can to it win the bb10 browsers with the cookies turned off, but if you try the same on safari on a mac it won't work unless you allow cookies.
As for me showing you my emails...nice try!
I could fake them anyway.
Try www.livestation.com

By the way, I had a similar email exchange with Rogers and their sending of IP traffic to Cisco servers in US. I explained to them that it was against Canadian privacy law.
They did acknowledge a class action suit on that topic in Canada.
If I agreed, I would have made it legal, so I switched to Bell.

Here are some pictures of the lovely playbook and z30 streaming live BBC World News in Canada, soccer and baseball matches on their screens or mirrored via HDMI cable to an external monitor. Pictures taken with my Passport.
Attachment 393763
Attachment 393764
Attachment 393765
Attachment 393766
Attachment 393767

[anon(1852343)]

I use the tangerine app for deposits. Tangerine.ca no fees. Great if you don't need to walk in. Can use scotiabank instant tellers for withdrawals.they pay referral fees for new sign ups too.

[sorinv]

So I can understand that perspective. Now look at it, though, from the bank's perspective. We aren't comfortable that we can offer check deposit safely or effectively through the browser. Everyone would love to, because our customers love that feature, but I don't know of any major bank that has been able to do it through the browser.

Now one other major bank that I know of did make a native PC app years ago for these types of transactions. If we were all to do that, however, we'd do it for Windows and Mac. We wouldn't be able to support it for Linux because it wouldn't be cost effective at all.

You feel that using unpopular operating systems is a security advantage for you. I can respect that. However, using unpopular systems means you can't then expect full support from your bank or anyone else. Everyone wants an ATM in their neighborhood market area, but it's not cost effective to have our own ATMs in every little market area on earth.

I have just watched a news segment discussion on ABC news Australia where they were saying that malware for bank apps on android is beginning to cause huge problems...
So, I don't think that using banking apps on the phone is wise or safe. But the banks choose not to publicize the losses and just crank up user fees.
Here is the link.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-1...alware/7238232

[conite]

I have just watched a news segment discussion on ABC news Australia where they were saying that malware for bank apps on android is beginning to cause huge problems...
So, I don't think that using banking apps on the phone is wise or safe. But the banks choose not to publicize the losses and just crank up user fees.
Here is the link.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-1...alware/7238232

"NICK FITZGERALD: Probably the most important thing is to not disable the built-in security control that by default Android devices don't let you install apps from third party app stores. They only let you install apps from the Google Play store. And this malware can't normally get on your phone unless you have disabled that."

[app_Developer]

I have just watched a news segment discussion on ABC news Australia where they were saying that malware for bank apps on android is beginning to cause huge problems...
So, I don't think that using banking apps on the phone is wise or safe. But the banks choose not to publicize the losses and just crank up user fees.
Here is the link.
Android users under attack from new malware targeting major banks - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

You do realize that phishing attacks are far more prevalent on websites, right? If you don't want to use apps because of phishing concern, then why use websites?

Phishing is generally more difficult on apps, but users can help by not installing software from dodgy sites. The banks can also implement features that mitigate this risk quite a bit. Again, we have more options available to us in apps than websites.

[sorinv]

So I can understand that perspective. Now look at it, though, from the bank's perspective. We aren't comfortable that we can offer check deposit safely or effectively through the browser. Everyone would love to, because our customers love that feature, but I don't know of any major bank that has been able to do it through the browser.

Now one other major bank that I know of did make a native PC app years ago for these types of transactions. If we were all to do that, however, we'd do it for Windows and Mac. We wouldn't be able to support it for Linux because it wouldn't be cost effective at all.

You feel that using unpopular operating systems is a security advantage for you. I can respect that. However, using unpopular systems means you can't then expect full support from your bank or anyone else. Everyone wants an ATM in their neighborhood market area, but it's not cost effective to have our own ATMs in every little market area on earth.

I am fine with that. I did not complain that I was missing apps on Linux or BB10. My priority is security, not apps.