Welcome

Welcome to my Blog. I mostly re post articles that i find interesting on the web. After the article you will find a link that leads you to the original one.

Monday, December 08, 2008

Kopbusters -- reality show that busts cops for conducting illegal drug raids

 

Former drug office Barry Cooper has launched an online reality TV show that sets up corrupt cops who conduct illegal drug raids.

KopBusters rented a house in Odessa, Texas and began growing two small Christmas trees under a grow light similar to those used for growing marijuana. When faced with a suspected marijuana grow, the police usually use illegal FLIR cameras and/or lie on the search warrant affidavit claiming they have probable cause to raid the house. Instead of conducting a proper investigation which usually leads to no probable cause, the Kops lie on the affidavit claiming a confidential informant saw the plants and/or the police could smell marijuana coming from the suspected house.

The trap was set and less than 24 hours later, the Odessa narcotics unit raided the house only to find KopBuster’s attorney waiting under a system of complex gadgetry and spy cameras that streamed online to the KopBuster’s secret mobile office nearby.

On the Agitator blog, Radley Balko says:
To clarify just a bit, according to Cooper, there was nothing illegal going on the bait house, just two evergreen trees and some grow lamps. There was no probable cause. So a couple of questions come up. First, how did the cops get turned on to the house in the first place? Cooper suspects they were using thermal imaging equipment to detect the grow lamps, a practice the Supreme Court has said is illegal. The second question is, what probable cause did the police put on the affidavit to get a judge to sign off on a search warrant? If there was nothing illegal going on in the house, it’s difficult to conceive of a scenario where either the police or one of their informants didn’t lie to get a warrant.

Cooper chose to bait the Odessa police department because he believes police there instructed an informant to plant marijuana on a woman named Yolanda Madden. She’s currently serving an eight-year sentence for possession with intent to distribute. According to Cooper, the informant actually admitted in federal court that he planted the marijuana. Madden was convicted anyway.

Kopbusters reality show

 

 

 

Original Linky

Friday, December 05, 2008

On Heels of Bailout, Citi Raises Rates on Millions of Cardholders [Op-ed]

 

We know the credit markets remain seized: late on Black Friday when no one was listening, the Federal Reserve issued a statement that its emergency lending to banks had increased over the prior week. Thus, massive amounts of money continue to flow to large financial institutions in an effort to stimulate economic activity, but by all appearances the money is not flowing into the broader economy. Quite the contrary; as the Fed lowers rates and adds record amounts of loaned cash to bank balance sheets, big banks are actually increasing consumers’ cost of borrowing and reducing their lines of credit. Witness Citibank's recent adverse actions against cardholders.

The most recent beneficiary of a taxpayer-financed lifeline, Citibank is the latest to demonstrate a strange way of saying thanks. First, we were subjected to the made-for-SNL performance on CNBC by the company’s largest shareholder, Saudi Prince Alwaleed. The interview was shot on location at the Prince's stables in Saudi Arabia. Note the beautiful sable horse in the background:

Far less entertaining were the letters that arrived in the mailboxes of millions of Citibank credit card customers last week. The letters informed customers that the APRs on their accounts will be hiked dramatically and immediately. Many will see their APRs raised more than ten points as soon as December 3 - just days after receipt of the letter.

The company claims the rate increases are limited to 20% of their cardholders (if true, that still represents 11 million Americans). In a statement, the company offered few details but acknowledged that it was “repricing a group of customers” in order to “continue lending in this environment.”

Those who pay their balance in full each month have nothing to worry about. And from what we can tell, “promotional balances” - such as that 1.9% balance transfer you might have taken advantage of - are not affected.

Based on admittedly-unscientific online discussions, customers across the risk spectrum have been targeted - including, most oddly, lowest-risk customers with top FICO scores who don’t carry balances. This would seem to indicate that the repricing is more widespread than Citi has indicated.

This deals an embarrassing death blow to the company’s enthusiastic promises last year, when Citi Cards CEO Vikram Atal told the United States Senate that they would abandon the practice of hiking rates on existing balances. Atal said the company was “giving up that practice,” and

“...will not voluntarily increase the rates or fees on the account until the card expires ... the only reason we would consider increasing the rates or fees before the card expires would be if a cardholder pays Citi late, exceeds the credit limit, or pays with a check that bounces. We believe we are the first bank to adopt this policy.”

Setting aside broken promises, Citi is right that we’re in a very difficult environment. But such a precarious environment seems to be the most dangerous time for repricing. Further, the repricing is in direct opposition to the first principle stated by the Federal Reserve when they announced the Citibank bailout last week: “to support a healthy resumption of credit flows to households and businesses.”

It may behoove us to think this forward a quarter or two from the perspective of the bank, the customers, and the broader economy. Beyond the unseemly PR of appearing to burn the taxpayer from both ends when they can least afford it, there are more serious implications.

First, customers who are barely making ends meet under their current arrangements could easily tip into default under the new terms. Many won’t even notice the change until it’s too late. This is the adjustable-rate-mortgage of the credit card business - but in these cases, the customer had no way to see the adjustment coming. This is not just bad for those customers, but it’s bad for Citibank because it will almost certainly generate larger losses down the road.

Second, Citi is allowing customers to “opt out” of the change, but those who do must close their account. This action almost always hurts a customer’s credit score, and the impact can be dramatic. It delivers a nasty one-two punch: it both reduces their reported payment experience and their amount of available credit. More than a third of a FICO score is determined by calculating the person’s percentage of available credit, so closing a credit card account can hurt big. Lower scores, in turn, will cause these customers to be seen as higher risk, and other lenders are likely to reprice them too, setting off a domino effect that could crush those who’ve done nothing other than pay their bills on time.

Third, this makes consumers much less likely to borrow and therefore spend. For many Americans, this is a good thing. But like it or not, spending is the engine of the American economy. The vast majority of consumers borrow - even short term - to finance things like holiday shopping. At a time when consumers are tightening their belts anyway, this presents another very ominous leading indicator for retailers at their most important time of year.

So, why is Citibank doing this? The easy answer is that they need to quickly increase their near-term cash flow in order to survive. This means letting less cash go out the door and charging higher rates on the cash they do.

A more cynical answer might be that the company wants to get ahead of impending legislative and regulatory changes. Both the Cardholders’ Bill of Rights and new lending regulations proposed by the Federal Reserve will expressly prohibit the practice and seem sure to pass by early next year. In light of Citi’s aggressive actions, we wonder if legislators may now consider making these changes retroactive.

So keep your eye out for letters from Citibank - and tell us your story.

Anthony Citrano is a freelance writer with a "great deal of interest in the consumer space, especially with regard to consumer credit and (bad/absurd) customer service experiences. Don't ask me why; I'm just that way." He has also written for Money Magazine.

(Photo: me and the sysop)

Original Linky

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

"Holistic Margin Management": What General Mills Calls Grocery Shrink Ray [Grocery Shrink Ray]

 

Guess what they call the Grocery Shrink Ray at General Mills? "Holistic Margin Management." I thinks that's also what they call it in 1984. Another interesting fact from a StarTribune article looking at shrinking packages: customers are more likely to notice a change in the height rather than the width of a box. But does anyone really care?

While we've done many shrink ray posts, I've wondered how much the non-Consumerist-reading population has noticed. Well, an October '07 survey found 47% of consumers said they noticed packages were becoming more diminuative. Since the pace, and the coverage, of shrinking packages has greatly increased since then, that number surely must be higher. Don't forget to compare unit prices!

Freshly squeezed: The ever-shrinking box and carton [StarTribune] (Thanks to al koholic!) (Photo: Mykl Roventine)

Original Linky

Monday, December 01, 2008

Neil Gaiman explains why he opposes laws banning speech he disagrees with

 

In response to a reader who asked him why he was sticking up for a manga collector whose comics included depictions of underage sex, Neil Gaiman responds with a reasoned, intelligent, and convincing article about the problems of legal limits on speech. First they came for the manga -- what's next?

So when Mike Diana was prosecuted -- and found guilty -- of obscenity for the comics in his Zine "Boiled Angel", and sentenced to a host of things, including (if memory serves) a three year suspended prison sentence, a three thousand dollar fine, not being allowed to be in the same room as anyone under eighteen, over a thousand hours of community service, and was forbidden to draw anything else obscene, with the local police ordered to make 24 hour unannounced spot checks to make sure Mike wasn't secretly committing Art in the small hours of the morning... that was the point I decided that I knew what was obscene, and it was prosecuting artists for having ideas and making lines on paper, and that I was going to do everything I could to support the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. Whether I liked or approved of what Mike Diana did was utterly irrelevant. (For the record, I didn't like the text parts of Boiled Angel, but did like the comics, which were personal and had a raw power to them. And somewhere in the sprawling basement magazine collection I have Boiled Angel 7 and 8, which I read back then to find out what was being prosecuted, and for owning which I could, I assume, now be arrested...)

...You ask, What makes it worth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means you're going to have to stand up for stuff you don't believe is worth defending, even stuff you find actively distasteful, because laws are big blunt instruments that do not differentiate between what you like and what you don't, because prosecutors are humans and bear grudges and fight for re-election, because one person's obscenity is another person's art.

Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.

Why defend freedom of icky speech? (Thanks, Neil!)

Original Linky