The screen where users enter their debit card information. Financial startup Square launched a new arm of its business Tuesday that allows two parties to transfer cash between themselves using only their debit card numbers and e-mail. Square Cash may trump similar services like PayPal in ease of use in that it doesn’t require extra bank info, and transactions can happen directly via e-mail. Competitors like PayPal have been able to handle direct debit transactions for some time, though setup is a bit more of a hassle. Users have to enter their checking account numbers and routing numbers and then verify their accounts with two small deposits, so the process can take a few days. With Square Cash, the process begins in e-mail : users send an e-mail to the person they want to pay, cc cash@square.com, and enter the amount in the subject line. If it’s their first transaction, Square sends a second e-mail that leads the user to a screen where they enter their debit card number, expiration date, and ZIP code. Once the person on the other end gets the e-mail and fills out the same form, the transaction is completed in 1-2 days. Read 2 remaining paragraphs | Comments
View original post here:
Square drastically simplifies Internet cash transfers
For nearly a decade now, TrueCrypt has been one of the trusty tools in a security-minded user’s toolkit. There’s just one problem, though. No one knows who created the software, and worse still, no one has ever conducted a full security audit on it—until now. Since last month, a handful of cryptographers have newly discussed problems and alternatives to the popular application, which lead on Monday to a public call to perform a full security audit on TrueCrypt. As of Tuesday afternoon, that fundraiser reached over $16,000, making a proper check more likely. Much of those funds came from a single $10,000 donation from an Atlanta-based security firm. “We’re now in a place where we have nearly—but not quite enough—to get a serious audit done,” wrote Matthew Green , a well-known cryptography professor at Johns Hopkins University, on Twitter. Read 3 remaining paragraphs | Comments 
Blackberry released a statement on Friday saying that it expects to report an operating loss of almost $1 billion in the coming days. According to The Wall Street Journal , Blackberry overestimated the number of new phones it would sell and is facing an “inventory charge of as much as $960 million and a restructuring charge of $72 million.” Specifically, the company said that it would likely report a loss of $950 million to $995 million for the second quarter. Earlier this week we reported that Blackberry was planning to lay off up to 40 percent of its employees, taking the company from 12, 700 full-time employees to about 7, 620 employees. The WSJ reported today that 4, 500 people will be laid off, lower than earlier estimates. (Is that a silver lining we see?) The Canadian company also reported today that it only sold 3.7 million smartphones in the last quarter, most of which were older phones. To stem the bleeding, Blackberry said that going forward, its “smartphone portfolio will transition from 6 devices to 4; focusing on enterprise and prosumer-centric devices, including 2 high-end devices and 2 entry-level devices.” As Quartz writer Christopher Mims wrote , it’s probably too late for Blackberry to turn around its share of the enterprise market given the latest moves made by Apple and Samsung to get their hardware into the hands of businesspeople. Read 1 remaining paragraphs | Comments 
A major new patent bill, passed in a 117-4 vote by New Zealand’s Parliament after five years of debate, has banned software patents. The relevant clause of the patent bill actually states that a computer program is “not an invention.” Some have suggested that was a way to get around the wording of the TRIPS intellectual property treaty which requires patents to be “available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology.” Processes will still be patentable if the computer program is merely a way of implementing a patentable process. But patent claims that cover computer programs “as such” will not be allowed. Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments