I'm open to your opinion on that, but if that's true why is it not being done? There's a lot of companies making IoT stuff, but it's really hard to find any of them making robust systems. The lack of profitability is the only way I can reconcile that. If you have another idea, let me know.
> I'm surprised you've read about that because that's against regulation in commercial security
Looking now, I see a lot of companies switching to local bluetooth connections. That's definitely an improvement to the last time I looked (years ago).
> The beauty of IoT is how it can be easily expanded and connected should you choose to.
I agree! but not if we keep pushing closed-off systems and protocols
Two reasons.
1. Time to market. Reliability and security are slightly expensive in money but very expensive in calendar time (throwing bodies at the problem, substituting money for time, is a somewhat effective way to get features and marketing, but not an effective way to get security).
2. Power. Remember that the entire edifice of modern economics is a leaky abstraction implemented on top of a killer ape. Power is a stronger motive than money.
Most profitable things are not currently being done.
Agree with manual overrides there is no reason to not have a key. I'm surprised you've read about that because that's against regulation in commercial security. If power goes down there should be a battery backup to power it and keep the key card / door security working OR it turns off and you can't lock your doors. Better to keep unlocked than have someone burn alive inside.
The beauty of IoT is how it can be easily expanded and connected should you choose to. There is nothing preventing companies from implementing the same idea to the payment system. Charge enough for securing those IoT devices once they reach out into the world and I think you can have a real system on your hands.