Comcast Interrupts Pope With Girls Gone Wild [Comcatastrophe]

Comcast Interrupts Pope With Girls Gone Wild [Comcatastrophe]

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 4/13/09

Oh, Comcast. Apparently, during a 2 a.m. showing of "Good Friday Mass at the Vatican," Comcast interrupted this regularly scheduled program with... an ad for Girls Gone Wild.

The Philadelphia Inquirer says that a glitch with the Emergency Alert System caused the program to switch from the Holy See to... well, an ad for boobies. Unlike the Superpornbowl, however, no actual porn was shown. The test was supposed to turn to a channel that provides emergency information.

'Girls Gone Wild' interrupts Good Friday service [Philly Inquirer]
(Photo:Fabio Pozzebom)

Does This Look Like a Gun to You ? [Dumb Cops]

Does This Look Like a Gun to You ? [Dumb Cops]

via Gizmodo by matt buchanan on 4/13/09

It did to Australian cops who found this steering wheel lock while searching 18-year-old Chad Hasting's car after they pulled him over. They called in backup and arrested him for possessing a gun.

Two more cops arrived in an unmarked car, and moments later, Chad Hastings was freed. According to Hastings, the arresting officer muttered, "Get a new steering wheel lock, it looks like a bloody gun," and told him he was a "a lucky boy," since "any other cop would have had you at gunpoint."

I have to say, if there was a gun that looked just like the Club, it would probably be a space death ray gun, so I think I'd have probably done same thing. [Courier Mail via digg]

Government To Banks: Why Are You Making Predatory Loans With Taxpayer Money?...

Government To Banks: Why Are You Making Predatory Loans With Taxpayer Money? [Wall Street Bailout]

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 4/13/09

The bailed-out banks have found a new way to annoy the government, according to the Congressional Oversight Panel, the body named by Congress to oversee the federal bailout. Chair of the committee and friend of the blog, Elizabeth Warren, is concerned that the same people who are subsidizing the banks are being targeted by abusive lending practices, says the Wall Street Journal

"The people who are subsidizing the activities of the banks through their tax dollars are the same people who are furnishing the high profits through consumer lending," Ms. Warren told the WSJ. "In a sense, we're asking taxpayers to pay twice."

The article called out Bank of America for raising interest rates on their credit card customers, and Citibank for offering $5,000 loans — and not disclosing in the advertising that the interest rate was (brace yourselves for this) 30% .
Citibank said that the interest rates on the loan mentioned in the article "compare competitively to similar offers in the market," and Bank of America said that "To continue to offer competitive products and services and responsibly lend in this current environment, we must adjust our pricing."

Meanwhile, consumer advocates, including our own Consumers Union, have been keeping an eye on Pacific Capital Bancorp, a bank that accepted TARP funds and is issuing so-called tax-refund anticipation loans. These loans can come with an interest rate that exceeds 100%.

A spokesperson for that bank said that they were not using TARP funds specifically to issue RALs, but that the funds did allow the bank to be healthy enough to lend a "variety of loans."

Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp were called out for offering "checking account advance" loans that carry an interest rate of 120%. These loans allow customers to borrow against presumably forthcoming direct deposits.

Bailed-Out Banks Face Probe Over Fee Hikes [WSJ]
(Photo:frankieleon)

Gay and Lesbian Books Lose Amazon Sales Rank For Some Reason [Amazon]

Gay and Lesbian Books Lose Amazon Sales Rank For Some Reason [Amazon]

via Consumerist by Laura Northrup on 4/12/09

This holiday weekend, Amazon quietly made some changes to their sales ranks, removing selected gay and lesbian books from the site-wide rankings and from some search results. What books were "selected" and speculation as to why they were selected has led to an online uproar.

Besides the one thing they have in common, the de-ranked books are all otherwise diverse, ranging from romance novels to serious nonfiction books; policy analysis to teen novels. Amazon should have learned by now that they really can't do this sort of thing these days unnoticed.

When author Mark Probst noticed popular gay romance novels disappearing from the sales rankings and contacted Amazon about it, they explained their logic thusly:

In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.

Oh. Well, that explains it...hey, wait a minute! Why are books with little to no sexual content flagged as "adult" and losing their position in the sales ranks? Why do much dirtier books about heterosexual characters or people still have their sales rank? What, exactly, is Amazon up to here? It's unclear, and that's making people mad.

Writers on Livejournal are building a comprehensive list of de-ranked books, and a Google bomb campaign is also afoot. I can't wait to see how very seriously Amazon will take this tomorrow.

But hey, at least all books about homosexuality haven't been removed from search results:

Amazon de-ranks so-called adult books, including National Book Award winner [LA Times]
Amazon Censorship - Who is affected? [Livejournal]
Amazon Rank Google Bomb [Smart Bitches, Trashy Books]
#Amazonfail [Twitter]
Thanks to everyone who sent this in!
(Photo: CarbonNYC)

United Airlines Won't Help Rush You To Your Dying Mother's Bedside Because "...

United Airlines Won't Help Rush You To Your Dying Mother's Bedside Because "It's Time For The Ticketing Agent's Break" [United Airlines]

via Consumerist by Carey on 4/12/09

Mike rushed his girlfriend to the airport to catch a flight to see her dying mother, only to watch her miss the flight because United Airline's ticketing agent refused to help because "it was time for her to go on her break." Passengers waiting in line were more than willing to let Mike's girlfriend skip to the front of the line, but her sad situation apparently wasn't enough to earn the agent's sympathies. When his girlfriend finally reached the gate in time to watch her flight depart, the gate agent defended his colleague's lack of sympathy, saying "management really makes us work some unreasonable schedules."

Mike cc'd us on his email to United Airline's C.E.O., Glenn Tilton.

Dear Mr. Tilton:

When the employees of large companies discard compassion, respect, and common human decency and instead place their own interests in front of those they are chartered to serve, then they are no longer deserving of the public's trust.

On February 19th, I received a phone call from my girlfriend's father indicating that her mother was close to death, and that-if at all possible-I should try and get his daughter to Portland, Oregon as quickly as I could.

I immediately left my office and began making arrangements to leave San Francisco for Portland, including calling the United Premier Reservation line on my way home to book a flight. The gentleman on the line provided me with a reservation number, informed me that I could pick up my tickets at the counter, and wished me the best of luck as the timing would be tight. On our way to the airport, I commented to my girlfriend that our ability to catch the 7:50 flight "would depend on the kindness of strangers."

Little did I know that the only unkind strangers I would encounter would all be wearing United blue.

We arrived at the airport at 7:20, but with very short ticket and security lines I felt that we had a decent chance of making the gate before the doors were closed. I explained to those customers waiting in line that we had a family emergency, and each agreed to let us move to the front.

The first agent to help me indicated that he could not ticket any passengers, and referred me to a different agent at the end of the counter. I approached this new agent, provided her with my record locator number and explained my emergency. I also asked her if there was any way she could contact the gate agent to let them know we were on our way, and perhaps keep the door open a few minutes longer if we were delayed at security.

To my utter amazement, your agent handed me back my record locator number, looked me straight in the eye, and informed me that she couldn't ticket me because "it was time for her to go on her break." I wasn't sure I heard her correctly, so I repeated the nature of our emergency. Again, your agent informed me that it was time for her break, "she had no choice," and that if I had a problem with it, I could talk to her supervisor.

I was absolutely horrified. The only person at the United counter who had the ability to ticket passengers felt that it was more important to go grab a soda than to give me a decent chance at making a flight to be with a dying relative.

I argued with this woman for a good 10 minutes, growing increasingly agitated. Even those passengers who had let me move to the front of the line voiced their objections. She did nothing to assist me, choosing instead to continue to quote company policy. Why she didn't just leave to go on her break is beyond me. Before she finally left, she placed a call to her supervisor and said, in a very sarcastic tone, that there was a customer at the counter "whose mother is sick and dying and who wants to hold a flight and speak with a supervisor." She refused to provide me with her name or employee number.

By the time I was able to find somebody new to help me, it was clear that I would no longer be able to make the 7:50 PM flight. I asked the new ticketing agent if there was any way that he could contact the gate to let them know we were on our way, but he said it was impossible. He booked us on the 10:30 flight.

Upon receiving our tickets, we ran to the security line and quickly made our way to the gate to see if there was still hope of making the 7:50 flight. The plane was still there, but the door was closed and your gate agent was turning other passengers away (including those who had arrived late on a connecting flight). I explained our ordeal to the gate agent, who simply provided me with some "United-style" sympathy: not only could he not re-open the gate, but he told me that he could understand the behavior of the ticketing agent because "management really makes us work some unreasonable schedules."

A perfect keystone ending to the most imperfect, flawed, and horrifying customer experience I have ever had in my life.

I realize that we can't legislate good customer service, and I suspect that no regulations were violated in this noble attempt by your staff to have us "fly the friendly skies." However, given the animosity that your employees seem to have for their management as well as their passengers, I hardly have faith in their ability to serve the public interest in other matters, including those involving passenger safety.

My girlfriend's mother passed away at 2:50 AM, shortly after we arrived in Portland. We will, of course, never know what we might have been able to share with her in the two and a half hours we burned sitting at a gate at SFO.

I certainly hope your agent's break was worth that price.

(Photo: piston9)

Florida Attorney General Sues Maker Of Caylee Anthony Doll [Lawsuits]

Florida Attorney General Sues Maker Of Caylee Anthony Doll [Lawsuits]

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 4/10/09

The Florida Attorney General has filed a lawsuit against Showbiz Promotions, LLC, maker of the Caylee Anthony doll and the Michael Vick dog chew toy, claiming that the company promised to donate the profits to charity — but did not follow through.

"Any company that intentionally misleads innocent consumers to believe they are contributing to worthy charitable causes is absolutely reprehensible," said Attorney General McCollum. "It is disgusting that a company would exploit a tragic situation for personal gain."

The AG's office said they began investigating the company in 2008, after receiving over 200 complaints about the sale of the Michael Vick dog chew toy.

From the AG's office:

New complaints have since surfaced over the company's use of Caylee Anthony's name and likeness for the "Sunshine Doll Collection" and other "Caylee Sunshine" merchandise. The lawsuit states the company and Salcedo intentionally misrepresented that a $5,000 donation was made to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children by Showbiz Promotions when, in fact, only a $10.00 donation was confirmed.

"This effort is outrageous and attempts to exploit the tragic murder of a child for personal benefit," said Ernie Allen, President and CEO, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. "NCMEC does not and will not ever be associated with any attempt to commercialize or raise money in connection with the victimization of any child."

Attorney General Sues Jacksonville Maker of Caylee Anthony Doll, Michael Vick Chew Toy [Florida AG]

Austin Jiffy Lubes Too Cheap To Dispose Of Oil Properly, Keep Dumping It In ...

Austin Jiffy Lubes Too Cheap To Dispose Of Oil Properly, Keep Dumping It In City Sewer System [Cheapskates]

via Consumerist by Chris Walters on 4/10/09

Heartland Automotive Services, Inc., which runs 31 Jiffy Lubes in the Austin area, has to pay a $300,000 fine after admitting to pumping used oil into the city's sewer system instead of recycling it. Normally shops are paid by the gallon for used oil, but in this case a damaged wall let water seep into the oil collection area and create a toxic mess that couldn't be sold—so instead of paying to remove it, they pumped it down the drain.

Heartland is trying to blame the pollution on rogue employees, but there's good reason to believe the company does this consistently and treats it as business as usual. For example, the district attorney's office says that regional and district managers knew what was going on. In addition, although the fines are addressing illegal discharges in 2006 and 2007, employees have stated that it's been going on since 2002. And in 2003, Heartland was fined $50,000 for the same illegal discharge activity at a different location in the city.

"Jiffy Lube owner hit with record fine after guilty plea" [Austin Statesman] (Thanks to Stephen!)
"Jiffy Lubes owner admits putting oil down the drain" [Austin Statesman]

CVS Gave Me The Wrong Pills! Is This Common? [Pharmacies]

CVS Gave Me The Wrong Pills! Is This Common? [Pharmacies]

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 4/6/09

Reader Pattie got the wrong pills from CVS and luckily, she noticed before taking them. She has no idea what they were, but is wondering if this sort of mistake is common.

Pattie says:

Today I picked up my medication from CVS Pharmacy, it's something I've taken for a couple years now so I'm familiar with what the pills are supposed to look like. When I got home with the bottle of pills and went to take one, I found that they looked all wrong. My pills are blue oval pills and rather large. These pills were small round gold pills. It's written on the bottle what they are supposed to look like, and the bottle said, "blue oblong tablets." I have never noticed this description before but I now see (looking at old empty bottles) this has been on there for some time. I wonder how many other people don't read the description.

I returned to the pharmacy with the bottle of pills and the pharmacists seemed confused but not concerned or terribly apologetic. They did say they were sorry, but that did not explain to me how this happened. What if I couldn't see? I'd have taken these mystery pills and who knows what could have happened to me. Don't pharmacies have double check policies to make absolutely certain that what is in the bottle is the proper medication? How often does this happen?

It's hard to actually know how often this happens — because pharmacies are not required to report errors to any regulating agency.

A 2007 20/20 investigation found that "in more than one in five cases, chain pharmacies made some type of error in filling their prescriptions," which, of course, is totally terrifying.

ABC says that none of the errors that they found were as severe as yours, (they were never given the wrong medicine) but their report apparently saved someone's life. A mom saw the investigation and checked her son's meds — only to find out that he'd been on the wrong pills for three weeks.

Ramirez said she filled her son's prescription for a drug called Tegretol-XR, which was prescribed to treat her son's mental health problems, on March 15 at her local Walgreens. But her child's condition worsened, and his doctor told her to increase the dosage.

It was not until a friend suggested she view the recent ABC News "20/20" report on pharmacy errors on The Blotter on ABCNews.com that Ms. Ramirez thought to double-check the prescription.

To her horror, instead of Tegretol-XR, Walgreens had given her Toprol XL used to treat high blood pressure in adults.

Apparently, had this gone on for much longer, it might have been fatal.

So pharmacy errors happen. Drugs sound the same, doctors scribble, and pharmacists don't have magical bad handwriting deciphering powers. They're also human beings who make mistakes.

Consumer Reports Health has some tips for preventing pharmacy errors from harming you or your family. Check them out.

Prevent drug mix-ups [CR Health]
Results of the ABC News '20/20' Undercover Pharmacy Investigation [ABC News]
New Pharmacy Error Found at Walgreens [ABC News]
(Photo:Spidra Webster)

Treasury Announces Multi-Agency Crackdown On Mortgage Fraud [Mortgage Fraud]

Treasury Announces Multi-Agency Crackdown On Mortgage Fraud [Mortgage Fraud]

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 4/6/09

Various U.S. officials, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, announced a multi-agency crackdown on foreclosure relief fraud today, vowing to "redouble efforts to crack down on schemes that target distressed homeowners and also to share more information and resources across agencies and with state officials," says the WSJ.

Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan announced at the press conference that Illinois had filed two lawsuits against mortgage rescue scammers.

"Struggling homeowners need to know that free help is available," Attorney General Madigan said. "We have repeatedly found that these operations are swindling desperate homeowners out of money they can't afford to lose. The lawsuits I have filed prove they don't provide any help. They don't call your lender, they don't modify your loan, and they don't represent you in court if you're in foreclosure. All they do is take your money."

According to a statement from the AG's office, the firms charge upfront fees in exchange for help dealing with the victim's lender or for "orientation" services, which require consumers to enroll in a one-year "membership club" and pay an upfront $575 application fee, $50 enrollment fee and a monthly fee of $69-89, as well as a final "success fee" that ranges from one to two percent of the loan amount."

Both companies are accused of failing to provide these services to their clients.

"On the state level, more than 150 enforcement actions have been brought against mortgage rescue companies across the country, and the states are increasingly sharing information and leveraging resources with our partners at the federal level," Madigan said. "By combining our powers in pursuit of this common purpose, state and federal authorities are sending a clear message to operators of mortgage rescue scams: It is not a question of if we'll come after you; it is only a question of when."

MADIGAN FILES TWO MORTGAGE RESCUE FRAUD LAWSUITS, SEEKS IMMEDIATE BAN ON COMPANIES' OPERATIONS [Illinois Attorney General]

Reader Finds Card Skimmer On Bank ATM [Skimmers]

Reader Finds Card Skimmer On Bank ATM [Skimmers]

via Consumerist by Chris Walters on 4/6/09

Dan says over the weekend he discovered a card skimmer attached to the ATM at his local WaMu branch. He pulled it off and took photos of it.

He writes:

This past weekend I went to use the local WaMu ATM to get some cash money. When I walked up to the ATM something struck me as funny…I couldn't quite put my finger on it but the card reader didn't look right, like it wasn't completely attached. I grabbed and pulled at the card reader and, lo and behold, it came off! It was actually a card skimmer attached to the ATM over that actual card reader. On the back there is a battery, flash memory card, and a mini USB port – it was set up so that ATM cards would first go through the skimmer and then into the ATM itself so you'd never know the difference. Fortunately I'd seen a news story about this sort of thing a couple of years back and have been paranoid ever since.

Watch out when you go to use an ATM!

If the card reader on an ATM seems like it doesn't belong—and especially if it looks fragile or misaligned—go to another ATM. And let someone at that bank or store know that they may want to double-check their ATM for skimmers.

We asked Dan what he did with the skimmer after he found it, and he wrote back,

When this happened on Saturday night I immediately contacted WaMu - I was put on the phone with a supervisor who took some info (where the branch was located, what time). She then told me to either take it to the police or bring it to the branch on Monday (today). I stopped by the local police station and they told me to take it to the branch on Monday so they could run their own investigation and that the bank could file a police report if needed.

The policemen got a big kick out of the skimmer, saying they'd never seen one in person.

I still have the card skimmer myself and plan on turning it in to the branch in a few hours after work.

National Federation Of The Blind Mounts Protest Over Kindle 2 Restrictions [...

National Federation Of The Blind Mounts Protest Over Kindle 2 Restrictions [Kindle]

via Consumerist by Chris Walters on 4/6/09

When the Authors Guild successfully agitated for the right to selectively remove the text-to-speech feature from books read on Amazon's Kindle 2, they alienated an entire group of potential consumers: people who have trouble reading normal printed works. Now a group called the Reading Rights Coalition is going to storm the Authors Guild's NYC office tomorrow at noon to protest.

The NFB and the Reading Rights Coalition point out that the Kindle 2 "promised for the first time easy and mainstream access to over 255,000 books" not just for the blind, but for anyone who would benefit from text-to-speech—for instance stroke victims, people with spinal cord injuries, people with dyslexia, people with learning disabilities, and seniors who are losing their vision.

The president of the NFB says the Authors Guild is guilty of promoting discrimination:

The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech technology to read and access information. As technology advances and more books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with print disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to enjoy access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. Authors and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e-books on the Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is blatant discrimination and we will not tolerate it.

While the Kindle requires vision to operate, it's not unthinkable that in the near future there will be other reading devices that offer voice-prompt navigation, so the text-to-speech issue is larger than just the Kindle 2.

Click here to find out more about the Reading Rights Coalition or to sign their petition.

---

In case you've forgotten the text to speech controversy from earlier this year, here's a recap:

When Amazon released the Kindle 2 in February the company announced that the device would be able to read e-books aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the Authors Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and publishers the ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of their e-books available for the Kindle 2. When the [National Federation of the Blind (NFB)] requested the Guild reconsider, the Guild told them that to read books with text-to-speech, print-disabled persons must either submit to a burdensome special registration system and prove their disabilities or pay extra for the text-to-speech version.

"Informational Protest" [Reading Rights]

Congressman who's giving payday loan companies legal 391% APR loans says he'...

Congressman who's giving payday loan companies legal 391% APR loans says he's poweless to resist their lobbying

via Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow on 4/5/09

The US House subcommittee on Financial Services is agitating to legalize payday loans with 391% APRs. Key committee members have received large campaign contributions from the "payday" industry, and the committee chairman, Luiz Gutierrez (who also received contributions from the payday people) says the reason he's offering the industry this sweetheart deal after being on record as opposing this sort of thing is that their powerful lobbying has left him powerless to resist them: "...[T]hey're very powerful. Their influence should not be underestimated."

After watching members of the military fall prey to exorbitant payday loans, Congress in 2006 capped the interest rates for military payday loans at 36%. Fifteen states have similar caps or outright bans.

Congressman Gutierrez is competing with Congressman Joe Baca to see who can author the biggest giveaway. Baca's legislation would allow rollovers, higher fees for online banks, and would pre-empt state laws banning payday loans.

House Preparing To Legalize Payday Loans With 391% APRs

Previously:

• Payday Loan scumbags prey on the elderly, illiterate, poor - Boing Boing
Previously:
• Bank pushing 120% APR loans - Boing Boing

House Preparing To Legalize Payday Loans With 391% APRs [Payday Loans]

House Preparing To Legalize Payday Loans With 391% APRs [Payday Loans]

via Consumerist by Carey on 4/5/09

A House subcommittee wants to legalize payday loans with interest rates of up to 391%. Lobbyists from the payday industry bought Congress' support by showering influential members, including Chairman Luiz Gutierrez, with campaign cash. The Congressman is now playing good cop, bad cop with the payday industry, which is pretending to oppose his generous gift of a bill.

"While they may not be JP Morgan Chase or Bank of America, they're very powerful. Their influence should not be underestimated," Gutierrez, the top Democrat on the Financial Services subcommittee in charge of consumer credit issues, said in an interview this week.

Indeed, the payday lending industry is strenuously resisting Gutierrez's measure, which it says would devastate its business. The measure would cap the annual interest rate for a payday loan at 391 percent, ban so-called "rollovers" - where a borrower who can't afford to pay off the loan essentially renews it and pays large fees - and prevent lenders from suing borrowers or docking their wages to collect the debt.

A newer player representing Internet payday lenders - a growing segment of the market - also ramped up its lobbying and political giving efforts. The Online Lenders Alliance, formed in 2005, nearly quintupled, to $480,000, its lobbying expenditures from 2007 and 2008. It contributed $108,400 to candidates in advance of the 2008 elections compared to about $2,000 in the 2006 contests. Gutierrez was among the top House recipients, getting $4,600, while the top Senate recipient was Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., a Banking Committee member who got $6,900.

After watching members of the military fall prey to exorbitant payday loans, Congress in 2006 capped the interest rates for military payday loans at 36%. Fifteen states have similar caps or outright bans.

Congressman Gutierrez is competing with Congressman Joe Baca to see who can author the biggest giveaway. Baca's legislation would allow rollovers, higher fees for online banks, and would pre-empt state laws banning payday loans.

Someone—maybe Carolyn Maloney, who did an excellent job with the Credit Card Bill of Rights—needs to step up and punch the payday lending lobbyists in the face.

THE INFLUENCE GAME: Payday lenders thwart limits [AP]

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to Consumerist using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

INCHworm Shoes Grow With Your Feet

Sent to you by wilman via Google Reader:

INCHworm Shoes Grow With Your Feet

via OhGizmo! by Luke Anderson on 4/2/09

By Chris Scott Barr

I remember as a kid having to go to Payless Shoes a couple times a year (depending on my age) and picking out new shoes to replace the uncomfortably small ones on my feet. I was hard on shoes anyway, so I really didn't mind picking out a nice new pair. My parents, on the other hand, weren't usually as happy when they had to pay for yet another pair of shoes that I'll outgrow. Wouldn't it be cool if there was a shoe that grew with your foot? There is, it's called the INCHworm.

These shoes have an accordion-like material around the arch of the foot, which can be pulled outward to increase the length of the shoe. All you have to do is press a button, pull, and your shoe can grow up to a full 3 sizes in ½ size increments. A small counter in the heel even lets you know which size the shoe currently is. For those worried that their child will wear out the shoes long before they outgrow them, the company assures us that they are some of the toughest shoes on the playground. They'll definitely save parents some scratch at just $39.99 a pair.

[ INCHworm Shoes ] VIA [ CoolestGadgets ]

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to OhGizmo! using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

Defenseless Elderly Woman Held Hostage by Maniacal Scooter [Man Vs. Machine]

Defenseless Elderly Woman Held Hostage by Maniacal Scooter [Man Vs. Machine]

via Gizmodo by Dan Nosowitz on 4/4/09

As predicted by Battlestar Galactica, machines are beginning their takeover. An elderly woman in Cornwall, England was seated peacefully on her supposedly-helpful scooter when the iron-hearted machine forcefully drove her onto a highway without permission.

The scooter planned its move carefully. It knew the woman's husband, recovering from a triple-bypass surgery, would be unable to chase after it. It waited until its innocent owner had dozed off, leaving her incapacitated and vulnerable. And it even showed signs of weakness prior to the kidnapping attempt, appearing unreliable, so when it did make its move, it would be all the more shocking.

It did not, however, account for the superior force of the Cornwall police department, which found it "swerving" on the highway five miles from home. The Cornish police captured the scooter and returned it to its now-wary owner. According to the BBC, "It took [officer] Michael Ginnelly an hour to drive the scooter back to Perranporth."

Said owner Eileen Bishop, "I just lost him. I was half asleep to tell you the truth."

Chilling. [BBC, image also BBC]

Fannie And Freddie To Pay $210 Million In Retention Bonuses [Bonuses]

Sent to you by wilman via Google Reader:

Fannie And Freddie To Pay $210 Million In Retention Bonuses [Bonuses]

via Consumerist by Carey on 4/5/09

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are preparing to hand out $210 million in taxpayer-funded retention bonuses to 7,600 employees. No bonus will exceed $1.5 million, but more than half of all Freddie and Fannie employees will receive an average bonus exceeding $24,000.

The maximum bonus for any employee will be $1.5 million, the regulator said. Freddie's bonuses are going to 80 percent of its employees, while Fannie's are going to 61 percent of its employees.

Ninety-two Freddie employees will receive $100,000 or more in 2009 and 121 Fannie employees will get bonuses of $100,000 or more. The FHFA declined to name the recipients, citing privacy concerns.

At Fannie Mae, chief operating officer Michael Williams is in line for a $1.3 million bonus, according to regulatory disclosures. Deputy chief financial officer David Hisey is slated for $1.1 million, while executive vice presidents Thomas Lund, responsible for the mortgage business, and Kenneth Bacon, responsible for housing and community development, are each in line for $1 million.

The director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the housing regulator that approved the bonuses, says that they are needed to keep the klutzes who ruined our housing market from ruining something new.

And you thought AIG's $165 million in bonuses were bad...

Fannie, Freddie Budget $210 Million On Bonuses, Draw Lawmakers' Fire [The Washington Post]

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to Consumerist using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

Man detained, threatened and abused by TSA for flying with $4700 in cash

Man detained, threatened and abused by TSA for flying with $4700 in cash

via Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow on 4/5/09

Here's a recording of Steve Bierfeldt, a US citizen who tried to board a domestic airplane while carrying $4700 in cash, and was detained by the TSA and subjected to abusive language and threats when he said that he would only answer the TSA's inquiries ("Where do you work?" "Why are you carrying cash?") if he was required to by law. The TSA agents threatened to turn him over to the DEA. He was returning from a Ron Paul event in St Louis, MO, and worked for the campaign. The cash on his person arose from sales of t-shirts and stickers at the event.

The transport cops in the audio recording of his interrogation actually tell him if he's not guilty he has nothing to fear.

Exactly what security threat does cash pose to an airplane? Are suicide bombers wont to carry a lot of liquid capital in case they flub it and need to bribe their way out?

Cue clueless commenter who says, "Well what did he expect when he told the law enforcement person that he expected to be informed of his rights and legal obligations before he would answer his questions?" After all, constitutional liberties are only there to be admired, not exercised. In 3...2...1.

Man detained and harassed at airport for carrying CASH! (via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

After Decade-Long Delay, House Tells FDA To Regulate Tobacco [News From The ...

After Decade-Long Delay, House Tells FDA To Regulate Tobacco [News From The Swamp]

via Consumerist by Carey on 4/4/09

The House this week voted to empower the FDA to regulate tobacco, just in case people still smoke even after new taxes push the cost of cigarettes to over $9 per pack and the recession bankrupts everyone. Under the measure, which passed 298-112, the FDA would be able to set nicotine levels, control cigarette advertising, and require companies to provide a full list of cigarette ingredients. As usual, the killjoys in the Senate may force the House to smoke a light version of the cigarette bill...

The bipartisan senators from North Carolina, a leading tobacco-growing state, have joined to introduce a competing bill in the Senate that would give tobacco regulatory power not to the FDA, but to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., would create the Tobacco Regulatory Agency within the department. A similar House alternative by Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., was defeated 284-142.

What the passed House bill will do instead is create within 90 days of its enactment a Center for Tobacco Products within the FDA that will report to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs just like all other FDA entities.

Philip Morris, the nation's largest cigarette maker, supports the House version of the bill, figuring that FDA oversight will kill any potential competitor.

The Senate is expected to take up the measure after the Easter recess.

House votes to give FDA power over tobacco [AP]
(Photo: Welvis Tarn)

Corporate Lawyer To Corporations: Stop Suing Websites! [The Law]

Corporate Lawyer To Corporations: Stop Suing Websites! [The Law]

via Consumerist by Carey on 4/4/09

A well-respected lawyer has a simple message for corporations: stop suing disgruntled customers who start websites to air their grievances. Though William Pecau of Steptoe & Johnson thinks that online gripers are "self-righteous narcissists with time on their hands," he also realizes that "shutting down a gripe site generally is not easy, often cannot be done, and often is counterproductive." Pecau goes on to explain exactly why most online gripers are safe from over-hyped takedown notices...

..the target/trademark owner typically bases its objection on trademark infringement and related federal and state law claims designed to protect trade identity and reputation, such as dilution, unfair competition, anti- cybersquatting, deceptive trade practices, defamation, and the like. However, there are significant difficulties with these claims. For the trademark infringement, unfair competition, and other claims that require a showing of likely confusion, there is the obvious problem that in most cases people are not likely to believe that the trademark owner has sponsored or approved a site that is devoted to disparaging the trademark owner, its brand, and its products or services - particularly when the site contains disparaging qualifiers such as "hate," "bad," or "sucks." In other words, there is no confusion. Also, the gripe site's use of the target's brand is almost always nominative and a fair use. The gripe site wants its readers to know its targets; it does not desire any confusion or mistake as to whom it is disparaging. This clarity of victim and purpose also makes it very difficult for any dilution claim to succeed - at least a claim of dilution of the distinctiveness of the mark.

So what can corporations do? First, realize that we love, LOVE posting your adorable cease and desist letters, so if you're going to send one, please make it nice and pleasant. You can also try buying up permutations of yourcompanysucks.com, but that doesn't work. As an absolute last resort, you can provide good customer service.

Finally, (Ed. emphasis ours, clearly, this is a contingency option) the target might seek to engage the operator of the gripe site to find out just what his/her problem is and see if it can be rectified. This would be the cleanest, easiest, and cheapest solution. It might not work, but it has little downside risk and might, if not immediately successful, attenuate the ferocity of the attacks and might in the long run hasten the end of the site, by causing its operator's interest to wane.

Gripe Sites: Sue or Stew (pdf) [Law Journal Newsletters—The Intellectual Property Strategist via Consumer Law & Policy Blog]
(Photo: Skelekitten)

The Verizon Website Is Surprisingly Honest About "Upselling" You [Verizon]

The Verizon Website Is Surprisingly Honest About "Upselling" You [Verizon]

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 4/3/09

Reader Beth is impressed with the honesty Verizon displays in the title of the webpage where they try to sell you bundled telecom packages.

Beth says:

I'm moving, so I'm signing up for new Verizon Fios service. I noticed that the title of one of the order pages was highly accurate — "Upsell"

Hey, we love transparency.

Dell Charges Customer $300 More Than He Authorized [Dell]

Dell Charges Customer $300 More Than He Authorized [Dell]

via Consumerist by Chris Walters on 4/3/09

Matt is having some trouble getting Dell to sort out its billing mistake with his new TV purchase. It's an interesting story because for the most part, Dell employees or outsourced CSRs are trying to be helpful to Matt, but nothing has actually been accomplished yet over email, chat, or the telephone. Matt wants his $300 back, and Dell wants Matt to just return the TV set if he won't pay the non-discounted price. We think he may have a case here for disputing the overcharged amount.

The problem started on Saturday, March 21st, when Matt went to use a coupon code for a discount on a Sharp Aquos 52" LCD TV. The code brought the price down to $1049.30. Then Matt abandoned the shopping cart to do more online research on the TV in question, and when he returned later that day the coupon code no longer worked.

A few days later, Matt decided to contact Dell via web chat to ask someone if they could honor the coupon. The CSR checked with her supervisor and told Matt yes they would, so the two of them completed the transaction right then over the web chat. She quoted a final price of $1049.30 plus tax, and Matt approved it and gave her his credit card info.

A few days later, he saw a charge on his account for $1448.49.

Here's where the real problems began. Matt contacted Dell customer service online via their web chat again, and "Adrian" told him they had no record of his earlier chat where he approved the purchase.

17:26:51 Customer Matt
i just received an invoice in the mail today from Dell. I checked my order status the other day and it said $1049.30 so I assumed all was well

17:27:21 Agent E&A_Adrian
can you give me the link to the order status you see online?

17:27:41 Customer Matt
I just put in the order number and my zip code. When I do it now I can't find anywhere that shows the price.

17:27:58 Agent E&A_Adrian
hmmm, ok

17:28:07 Customer Matt
Can you please email me a copy of the chat log?

17:29:01 Agent E&A_Adrian
unfortunately, the only one I have here is the chat you have made 45 minutes ago [referencing an earlier chat that Matt abandoned due to a language barrier with the chat agent -Ed.]

17:29:18 Customer Matt
There is no chat log from the date of the order?

17:29:29 Customer Matt
There has to be some record of an order since I placed it via chat.

17:30:07 Customer Matt
Otherwise there is no record of me accepting any charge to my credit card

17:31:16 Agent E&A_Adrian
there is a record of the order - its in the order confirmation email

17:31:44 Customer Matt
I never received one

17:32:08 Customer Matt
Had I received one that said $1448.49, I would have called Dell immediately

Adrian told Matt he could return the TV for a full refund of the charge, but there was nothing else he could do.

Matt then emailed michael@dell.com and explained the situation. A few days later, he heard back from someone via telephone:

I received a phone call from someone at Dell around 3:00 EST today [March 31st]. He said he was an assistant of Mr. Dell and my email (to Michael Dell directly) was received. I was told that it was going to take 2 or 3 days, but he would get back to me and he would try his hardest to make sure that I get the TV for the price that I was quoted.

Sounds good, right? Then today, Matt received another phone call:

I just wanted to send along another update as they come in. I received a phone call from the same man (seems like someone from their outsourced customer service team) on Thursday. I was told that they still cannot access the sales chat log from my date of sale. He told me that at this point it is unlikely that they can help me any further, but he needed a few more days to confirm. He said he would call back Monday.

You may not have the original chat log, Matt, and clearly Dell doesn't (or doesn't want to admit to it), but you do have a pretty clear admission by Adrian in the second chat that you were charged more than the amount you authorized:

18:29:54 Agent E&A_Adrian
the coupon was erroneously applied that's why the sales rep gave you that price. But since our system detected that the coupon should not applicable on the TV, the price adjusted automatically giving you the sale price minus the coupon

18:30:50 Customer Matt
That is understandable, but I did not authorize that price to my credit card. My credit card should not have been charged and I should have been contacted.

18:32:50 Customer Matt
I was authorized a price, and it was approved by a supervisor. That price should be honored.

18:38:00 Agent E&A_Adrian
I'm sorry but errors do occur every once in a while, and I also apologize in behalf of the sales rep that placed the order

18:38:50 Agent E&A_Adrian
that she did not contact you right away

Based on that alone, we think you have enough to go to your bank or card issuer and dispute the unauthorized $300 charge.

Somewhere in Matt's emails to us—we've tried to edit it down to the most important details here—he points out that he should have copied and saved that initial web chat just in case something like this happened. It's a good point, and this is a good example of why you should do it. Remember to always take steps to keep a record of any exchanges you have with a business in case you need to refer to it later.

(Photo: ethanlindsey)

Allerca, Where's My $4,000 Hypoallergenic Cat? [Simon Brodie]

Allerca, Where's My $4,000 Hypoallergenic Cat? [Simon Brodie]

via Consumerist by Ben Popken on 4/3/09

Would you pay $4,000 for a hypoallergenic cat? One reader did and he's still waiting for his cat, or a refund, from the Allerca corporation. Allerca founder Simon Brodie garnered lots of press a few years ago after he claimed to be able to sell genetically engineered cats that wouldn't trigger any allergies, a designer pussy called "Ashera." Our reader isn't alone, you can find a slew of complaints online from people who say they've that they've forked over thousands of dollars to Allerca, and never gotten a hypoallergenic cat, or a refund.

One complaint among over 270 comments on one blog says that it took them two and a half years to get a cat, and when they did, it wasn't hypoallergenic at all. It was just a cat, and a sick one at that.

Some sites have probed Brodie's background and allege a history of fraud. When the Sand Diego Union Tribune investigated they found lots of skeptics, that Brodie had a history of failed companies, had been evicted from the Allerca headquarters (where he also lived), and that he owed ex-employees thousands, but no hypoallergenic cats. Also, that he had ripped off the photos from another photographer. When questioned, Brodie had lots of excuses, but again, zero hypoallergenic cats.

Now the sites say Brodie has renamed himself Simon Carradan and is on to a new business venture, selling $19,000 skis.

Felis Enigmaticus [The Scientist]
Franchised felines? [San Diego Union Tribune]
The Murky Background Of The Ashera And Allerca [MessyBeast]
Allerca Lifestyle Pet Rip-Off

Best Buy and Safety Regulatory Commission Screw Customers on Flammable HDTVs...

Best Buy and Safety Regulatory Commission Screw Customers on Flammable HDTVs [Best Buy Is Scum]

via Gizmodo by Dan Nosowitz on 4/4/09

A voluntary recall of one of Best-Buy-house-brand Insignia's popular HDTVs has been issued, after an irreparable design flaw causing burns and fire was discovered. But customers are getting burned in more ways than one.

[Note: Zing!]

The 26-inch sets, of which more than 13,000 units were sold, was priced between $900 and $1,000 at Best Buy, yet the US Consumer Product Safety Commission allows Best Buy to get away with exchanging a mere $500 gift card for the defective product. That means the customer is screwed out of either half or nearly half of the original price through no fault of their own, and they'll have to pay sales tax yet again if they want to replace the TV. Gift cards, unlike store credit, are still subject to said sales tax, which on a large purchase like this can be a significant chunk of change.

HDGuru recommends immediately replacing the set (model number IS-LCTV26), as it has already caused one injury and cannot be repaired. Give Best Buy a call at (800) 233-0462 to return it.

We also concur that calling the US CPSC at 800-638-2772 to give 'em a piece of your mind is warranted. At the very least, we invite all readers to load the Best Buy website and shake your fists angrily toward it. [HDGuru, Image: bdjsb7/Flickr]

Only 42 People Want A Piece of Dell's $1.5 Million Settlement? Seriously? [S...

Only 42 People Want A Piece of Dell's $1.5 Million Settlement? Seriously? [Settlements]

via Consumerist by Carey on 4/4/09

Come on people, Dell agreed to dole out $1.5 million to customers who had problems with warranty repairs, credit financing, and rebates, but with only a week before the filing deadline, Washington's Attorney General says that only 42 people in his state have submitted claim forms. We know there are eligible Dell victims out there. Our tipline alone has nearly 1,000 Dell-related complaints. Please, fill out your claim form now and get the money your state attorney generals earned for you!

Who is eligible for restitution under the Dell multi-state settlement?

Anyone who bought Dell goods or services between April 1, 2005 and April 13, 2009

AND experienced one or more of the following may be eligible for restitution:

• A problem with a Dell financing offer
• A problem with a Dell rebate
• A problem with Dell financing
• A problem with a Dell repair, warranty or servicing

Residents of the following 34 states are eligible for refunds:

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Filing a claim form does take a little bit of actual work in that you have to go to your state Attorney General's page and fill out a form, but this is a rare chance to make Dell pay for their shoddy service. Spend five minutes finding the form and submit it before the April 13 deadline.

Dude, don't wait on that Dell refund! [All Consuming]
PREVIOUSLY: Dell Settles With 34 States Over Anti-Consumer Practices
(Photo: DM Rosner)

The $1,821.97 Blackberry Bill [BlackBerry]

The $1,821.97 Blackberry Bill [BlackBerry]

via Consumerist by Ben Popken on 4/3/09

Maybe things are different in your house but in PJ's it's rather disconcerting to receive a bill for $1,821.91 for the wife's Blackberry. U.S. Cellular says that she used 150mb of data and now must pay the price. PJ's wife has no idea what she might have done that would've been that large, and US Cellular can't tell her either. They just want their monies.

PJ writes:

My wife just received a bill for $1800 for my wife's blackberry when she normally pays around $65. They claim she used 150mb of data and charge an outrageous amount per kb for an extra $1500 in data charges and $200 in taxes! They can't explain what the data was that caused this mess and expect us to pay the bill. She has had her Blackberry for 2 years and never had a bill over $70 and never used more than the 4mb (that's the blackberry plan she is on).

I can't believe that they expect us to just pay the bill.

I would try the ol' escalation trick to get this figured out.

AT&T Says Horrible Terms of Service Update Was All a Big Mistake [Oops]

AT&T Says Horrible Terms of Service Update Was All a Big Mistake [Oops]

via Gizmodo by matt buchanan on 4/3/09

Millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and AT&T swiftly backtracked on the draconian updates to their terms of the service that effectively ban Skype, Sling and other goodness: It's all a big mistake!

The language added on March 30 to AT&T's wireless data service Terms and Conditions was done in error. It was brought to our attention and we have since removed it. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Raise your hand if this BS smells like roses to you.

Terror cops in Wales mistake jazz musician for terrorist

Terror cops in Wales mistake jazz musician for terrorist

via Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow on 4/3/09

Britain's crazy anti-terror laws lend themselves to being brought into action by any kook, something that's been borne out again recently after a jazz musician in Wales was subject to an armed terror-squad raid after a tipster told them they thought he was a terrorist (he has brown skin, a soundproofed recording studio, and drinks "ethnic" West Indian beverages).

Victor Frederick, 63, was arrested and strip-searched just yards from his home, just moments after his partner Andrea Heath and their daughter had infra-red sights trained at them and were told they would be shot if they moved.

No charges were ever brought against Mr Frederick...

But Mr Frederick, who has lived in Cardiff for 35 years and is originally from St Kitts in the West Indies, told how:

police confiscated apparently suspicious items, which included a video of boxer Muhammad Ali and a ceramic urn containing a traditional West Indian drink;

police interpreted soundproofing equipment and wiring from his musical studio as a potential sign of illicit activity;

he was followed by a police helicopter flying just above him more than two weeks after last month's raid on his house in Holmesdale Road, Grangetown.

Terrified musician targeted in armed anti-terror raid (Thanks, Carl!)

Sears Guy Doesn't Fix Your TV, Drives On Your Lawn, Runs Into Things [Sears]

Sears Guy Doesn't Fix Your TV, Drives On Your Lawn, Runs Into Things [Sears]

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 4/3/09

Reader Joel isn't too happy with the service he got from Sears. He was looking to get an older TV fixed and, rather than make sure that they could fix it, Sears sent a guy to drive on Joel's lawn.

Recently, my 52 inch projection television lost picture and I needed repair. I found Sears on line and called. Yes, they needed a nine hour window so I had my sister meet them for me as I work. When I initially made the call, I explained to them that this is an older model set.

They asked no questions such as " How old is it? " so I assumed it doesn't matter. The repair guy shows up about 3:00 p.m. and disassembles my set. He then tells my sister that parts are no longer made for this model as it is to old.

They could have asked the question and told me that over the phone and saved me a 100.00 trip charge. But that's not all. It has been raining a lot and the ground is saturated.

This idiot decides, when he is leaving, rather than back his vehicle in the area where my cars are parked, he would rather back up into my FRONTYARD! As I'm sure you can guess, he got stuck. So he backed up in a circular pattern and was able to free himself only after digging up my lawn. Also he backed up so far as to run into my security light post. Sears will not excuse the $100.00 charge.

Go figure. $100.00 well spent!!!!!!! Unbelievable! Thanks for giving me an outlet to vent.

You know, venting is great, but if he did serious damage to your lawn or other property that will cost money to fix, you might want to consider filing a small claims lawsuit against Sears.

It doesn't cost much, and its easier than you think. Here's some information about small claims court that can help you make your decision.

AT&T Wireless has surprising new terms of service

AT&T Wireless has surprising new terms of service

via Crave: The gadget blog by Dong Ngo on 4/3/09

This Slingbox app for iPhone isn't out yet, but you are already no longer allowed to fully enjoy it on the go.

(Credit: Dong Ngo/CNET)

For a moment, I thought AT&T Wireless' new Netbook offerings were good deals. As it turns out, not so much.

According to Publicknowledge.org, the company silently revised its terms of service on Monday, just a few days before it announced the new program to offer discounted Netbooks to its 3G broadband service customers in Atlanta and Philadelphia.

In the "Prohibited and Permissible Uses" section, the new terms of service explicitly state:

Downloading movies using P2P file-sharing services, customer-initiated redirection of television or other video or audio signals via any technology from a fixed location to a mobile device, Web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited.

This means you are potentially no longer allowed to stream content from third-party Web sites, such as You Tube, and may not even freely use video-streaming applications, such as Slingbox (both the existing Windows Mobile and upcoming iPhone versions) anymore. In terms of the bigger picture, AT&T is now treating its 3G wireless data network differently from its wired high-speed DSL network, which still allows you to do whatever you want. This is probably because the company does have to pay for the wireless spectrum, in addition to other investments.