Jumat, 31 Oktober 2014

UPS Driver Kicks Fragile Package, Is Caught On Camera

UPS Driver Kicks Fragile Package, Is Caught On Camera

UPS Driver Kicks Fragile Package, Is Caught On Camera



UPS Driver Kicks Fragile Package, Is Caught On Camera











package_kickerWe at Consumerist have wondered for years now why courier service drivers haven’t yet figured out that business and residential customers alike have security cameras. Like the office on Long Island that caught a UPS driver kicking and shoving a delicate box back to the truck when they had to refuse the delivery.
















Inside the box was a nitrogen calibration system worth about $12,000, according to the would-be recipient. It had been sent “cash on delivery,” and their policy is to not accept such shipments, because the company probably doesn’t just keep twelve grand in the receptionist’s desk.
















You can see on the video that the driver is not thrilled that the large box has to go back to the truck, and let his frustrations out on the innocent box. He kicked, shoved, and rolled it, which raises the inevitable question of how he got it to the office entrance in the first place.







































UPS, of course, delivers millions of packages safely all over the world every day, and I am not just saying that just because I’m at home right now waiting to sign for an important UPS package. Even the company that filmed the box-kicker admits that they receive shipments daily, and have never had a similar problem before.
















When contacted about the video, a UPS representative said that this isn’t acceptable handling for any package, let alone one that’s so valuable. “UPS does not condone this specific driver’s behavior,” they told WCBS in New York City. “We are investigating the issue and will take corrective action with this driver.”
















UPS Driver Caught On Video Kicking Package [WCBS]
































by Laura Northrup via Consumerist















via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sSka







November 01, 2014 at 01:08AM







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9ATWt



November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1tp20BU

November 01, 2014 at 01:56AM

Disney’s Search Engine Patent Lumps Movie Piracy In With Child Porn

Disney’s Search Engine Patent Lumps Movie Piracy In With Child Porn

Disney’s Search Engine Patent Lumps Movie Piracy In With Child Porn



Disney’s Search Engine Patent Lumps Movie Piracy In With Child Porn


























The folks at Disney have patented a search engine that ranks and filters out results based on “authenticity” metrics, allowing it to exclude “undesirable” results, which it describes only as “results referencing piracy websites, child pornography websites, and/or the like,” lumping in people trying to watch Finding Nemo for free with dangerous sexual predators.







“[S]imply measuring the number of times a web page is visited or using a popularity index might not accurately convey the utility of a web page to the user performing a search,” reads the approved patent application for Disney’s “Online content ranking system based on authenticity metric values for web elements.”
















The application explains that, rather than turn up legitimate sources of the things for which people search, the results “might return references to pages of disreputable sellers and even references to pages designed to push malware to a user’s computer, which may have nothing to do with the desired search.”
















Among the various ideas presented in the patent is the notion that “official” websites would be ranked higher than sites that may be more popular or have more links back to them.
















It gives the example of the official Disney website page for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs versus an online encyclopedia page for the movie.
















When we searched for the movie using Google, the Wikipedia entry was indeed the first link, followed by its imdb.com page, with a Disney website coming in third in the results.
















But under the patented search engine, the Disney site, “may be associated with an authenticity weight that is greater than the authenticity weight associated with the encyclopedia web page because Disney.go.com is the official domain for The Walt Disney Company. As such, with respect to the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs film, the Disney.go.com web page may be considered more authoritative (and thus more authentic) than the encyclopedia web page.”
















This is a stance that many companies and public figures have tried, to no avail, to convince Google to take, claiming that when someone searches for “Brand XYZ” or “Specific Former Pennsylvania Senator with Unique Last Name,” users are likely looking for the websites for Brand XYX or that Senator, not a retailer who might carry that brand or a scatological slang definition of that politician’s last name.
















It’s not known if Disney intends to launch a new search engine — it has one of its own, but it only works on Disney sites — or if this is something it hopes to sell to a company like Google or Microsoft.
















For its part, Google — which maintains that most pirates don’t use search engines to find free content — has been trying to demote search results for pirated material. and will promote legitimate sources of content if it’s paid to do so.
















[via TorrentFreak]
































by Chris Morran via Consumerist















via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sRwC







November 01, 2014 at 01:08AM







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1udM0Vl



November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1vpvkVt

November 01, 2014 at 01:56AM

Ferrari To Pay $3.5M Penalty For Failure To Submit Fatality Reports To NHTSA For Three Years

Ferrari To Pay $3.5M Penalty For Failure To Submit Fatality Reports To NHTSA For Three Years

Ferrari To Pay $3.5M Penalty For Failure To Submit Fatality Reports To NHTSA For Three Years



Ferrari To Pay $3.5M Penalty For Failure To Submit Fatality Reports To NHTSA For Three Years











(Ian)







(Ian)
























As we’ve reported previously, car manufacturers are required to report death and injury claims to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration so that the agency can identify potentially fatal and dangerous defects. Failing to submit those reports not only endangers drivers, it can cost a pretty penny for auto makers. Just ask Ferrari, the high-end carmaker must pay a $3.5 million penalty for its inaction.







NHTSA announced that Ferrari will pay the hefty fine and revise its reporting procedures as a result of failing to submit early warning reports [EWR] that included three fatalities.
















Ferrari, a subsidiary of Chrysler Fiat, admitted that it violated federal law when, for three years, it failed to submit required safety information to the agency.
















While Ferrari once qualified as a small volume manufacturer and was not required to file quarterly reports with NHTSA, that status changed when Chrysler was acquired by Fiat in 2011.
















Additionally, all car manufacturers are required to submit fatal accidents no matter their volume size.
















“There is no excuse for failing to follow laws created to keep drivers safe, and our aggressive enforcement action today underscores the point that all automakers will be held accountable if they fail to do their part in our mission to keep Americans safe on the road,” Anthony Foxx, U.S. Transportation Secretary, says in a NHTSA statement.
















Under the settlement, Ferrari must improve its processes for EWR reporting, to train personnel on the EWR requirements, to communicate these improvements to NHTSA, and to retroactively submit all EWR reports.
















NHTSA Fines Ferrari $3.5 Million for Failing to Submit Early Warning Reports [NHTSA]
































by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist















via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sP7V







November 01, 2014 at 01:08AM







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9AQdg



November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1tp204U

November 01, 2014 at 01:56AM

Review Of Dunkin’ Donuts Not-A-Cronut: It’s The Lookalike Pet Parents Buy When Real One Dies

Review Of Dunkin’ Donuts Not-A-Cronut: It’s The Lookalike Pet Parents Buy When Real One Dies

Review Of Dunkin’ Donuts Not-A-Cronut: It’s The Lookalike Pet Parents Buy When Real One Dies



Review Of Dunkin’ Donuts Not-A-Cronut: It’s The Lookalike Pet Parents Buy When Real One Dies











notacronut Earlier this week, Dunkin’ Donuts announced that it was jumping on the call-it-anything-but-a-Cronut craze by offering its own croissant/donut hybrid. Alas, the early word from one fan of the original Cronut is not so appetizing.
















Over at People.com, writer and food-tasting guinea pig Mark Marino — a self-described aficionado of the actual Cronuts created by NYC pastry chef Dominique Ansel — put the DD “crossaint-donut” to the test, with not-so-favorable results.
















“The company claims it’s not ‘copying a specific bakery in New York’ with its holey creation, and I believe them,” he writes, “mainly because the Duncrodonsant… looks and tastes nothing like a Cronut.”
















Marino likens the experience of eating a Fauxnut to parents’ failed attempts to placate children when their pet parakeet dies.
















“[Y]our parents run out and buy a new one but try to convince you it’s the same bird even though it is bigger and has different markings and bears no resemblance the original bird,” he writes. “It’s kind of like that.”
















As for his specific issues with the DD product, Marino cites the chain’s decision to glaze its creation, as opposed to Ansel’s unglazed Cronuts, which only have a light layer of frosting on top and a dusting of sugar on the sides.
















But the problems aren’t just crust-deep, according to the review. While one should be able to peel apart the flaky layers of a croissant/donut thingy, the DD version contains “dense, yeasty layers” and “just tastes like a regular glazed donut.”
















Marino writes that it’s not a bad thing, but concludes, “I definitely wouldn’t wait in line at 5:30 a.m. for one. Unless I had to kill time waiting for PetSmart to open so I could buy a replacement parakeet.”
















No word yet on whether Ansel’s lawyers have sent Dunkin’ a cease-and-desist letter over its not-a-Cronut.
































by Chris Morran via Consumerist















via Blogger http://ift.tt/1udE0U7







November 01, 2014 at 01:08AM







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9ARO7



November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1tp1Ydh

November 01, 2014 at 01:56AM

Does Using Someone Else’s Costco Card To Steal From Store Count As Burglary?

Does Using Someone Else’s Costco Card To Steal From Store Count As Burglary?

Does Using Someone Else’s Costco Card To Steal From Store Count As Burglary?



Does Using Someone Else’s Costco Card To Steal From Store Count As Burglary?


























When you leave a store without having paid for something, you’ve likely committed the crime of theft, but if you use someone else’s card to get into a warehouse club like Costco or Sam’s Club and then walk out of the store without paying for items in your bag, have you also committed the crime of burglary? A New Mexico appeals court says no, but it depends on where you live.







Back in 2010, a group of people in New Mexico — none of them Costco members — flashed a membership card on their way into an Albuquerque-area store. And while perusing the oversized aisles, they stashed some items in a purse belonging to a woman in the group.
















They did pay for some bottled water and ice cream, but didn’t pay for the items put into the purse, so a loss-prevention employee stopped them.
















In 2012, some members of the group were found guilty of burglary, which New Mexico state law defines, in part, as “unauthorized entry of any vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure, movable or immovable, with the intent to commit any felony or theft therein.”
















Prosecutors argued that the crime rose to the level of burglary because the shoplifters had no right to enter the store since they were not Costco members. Thus, use of someone else’s card constituted an unauthorized entry by fraud, deceit, or pretense.
















But a state appeals court panel unanimously reversed that conviction earlier this year, ruling that “retail stores are open to the public during business hours and, therefore, an individual who enters a retail store with the intent to shoplift is not guilty of burglary.”
















In their opinion, recently published in Bar Bulletin [PDF, see p. 25], the appeals panel pointed to conflicting testimony provided by two Costco employees during the trial.
















One greeter first testified that members of the public are not allowed inside Costco without a membership, but also told the court that it isn’t routine or in her “job description” to check the photos on membership cards, agreeing that a “ten-year-old Costco card, a friend’s card, [or] a card they found on the street” could be used to enter the store.
















A second employee, this one from loss-prevention, also testified that only members could enter the store but later clarified that the store policy really just meant that non-members “cannot make purchases.”
















“Notwithstanding Costco’s membership policies, we discern no particular security or privacy interest at stake inside Costco that justifies recognizing a departure from the general rule that we presume retail stores to be open to the public,” reads the appeals court’s opinion.
















While Costco shoppers pay a membership fee to enjoy the benefits of buying in bulk from the store, the court claims that, “Once inside, the store is similar to any other retail store in that merchandise is presented for the shopping public to purchase.”
















Thus, explains the panel, using someone else’s card to enter a Costco or similar store does not engender “the feeling of violation and vulnerability” normally associated with the crime of burglary.
















The court also pointed out that there is no security purpose to the membership requirement, as there are already laws against trespassing and theft.
















“Defendant’s entry into Costco during business hours, albeit deceptive, granted him access to an otherwise open shopping area, as opposed to an area ‘where things are stored and personal items can be kept private,'” writes the court. “Thus, as far as the privacy and security interests of the store itself are concerned, we see no heightened or unique security or privacy interest that distinguishes Costco from other retail stores that we generally consider open to the public.”
















Commenting on the implications of assuming that faking your way into Costco may raise a petty theft to charge to the level of burglary, the panel concludes, “It would be an absurd application of our burglary statute to punish those who shoplift from Sam’s Club more severely than those who shoplift from Walmart.”
















At the same time, the court acknowledges that some states have a much broader definition of burglary, citing the California criminal code, which states that “Every person who enters any store with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.”
















In that case, the definition is so broad that it doesn’t matter whether you use someone else’s card or your own Costco ID; if you go into the store to steal, you’ve committed a burglary in California.
















[via ABQjournal.com]
































by Chris Morran via Consumerist















via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sOkC







November 01, 2014 at 01:07AM







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9AOlF



November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1vpvk7K

November 01, 2014 at 01:56AM

Developmentally Disabled Man Falls Over Mall Railing, Dies

Developmentally Disabled Man Falls Over Mall Railing, Dies

Developmentally Disabled Man Falls Over Mall Railing, Dies



Developmentally Disabled Man Falls Over Mall Railing, Dies


























Police say that what happened yesterday at the Palisades Center mall in the suburbs of New York City was a terrible accident. Residents from a nearby group home for developmentally disabled adults were on a trip to the local mall, and somehow––nobody knows quite how yet––one of the residents fell over a third-floor railing, landing at the bottom of an escalator near the Best Buy store. He died on the scene.







The group was on a trip meant to get people with developmental disabilities out in the community, called “habilitation.” Police hadn’t yet announced the identity of the man or of the group home as of late last night, since his family had not yet been identified. “The safety of the individuals in our care is paramount and we are doing everything we can to help determine what led to this terrible accident,” a statement from the social services agency that runs the home, New York Foundling, said in part.
















Police say that the man had been standing near a railing next to the escalator bank on the third floor, near Best Buy. Then he wasn’t. Shoppers made a flurry of calls to 911 to report the accident. The man was pronounced dead at the scene. Police believe that he fell, rather than jumping or being pushed, but they will investigate.
















Group home resident falls to death in Palisades Center mall [Journal News]
































by Laura Northrup via Consumerist















via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sO3S







November 01, 2014 at 01:07AM







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9AO59



November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1vpvigq

November 01, 2014 at 01:56AM

Deer Goes On Rampage Breaking Windows At Subway, Visiting Auto Repair Center

Deer Goes On Rampage Breaking Windows At Subway, Visiting Auto Repair Center

Deer Goes On Rampage Breaking Windows At Subway, Visiting Auto Repair Center



Deer Goes On Rampage Breaking Windows At Subway, Visiting Auto Repair Center


























A deer’s lack of opposable thumbs led him to take a different route while trying to obtain a foot-long from a Pennsylvania Subway: jumping through the window. But things didn’t end there, the wild animal continued his rampage down the street at an auto repair shop.







Lancaster Online reports that the buck jumped through a window of a local Subway restaurant Wednesday morning, jumping over the counter while thrashing around the store.
















The whole ordeal lasted about 10 minutes or so before the large, antlered deer knocked out yet another window trying to escape.
















Eventually, the deer made its way through a back door and smashed through the restaurant’s fence, employees tell the newspaper. No customers were in the restaurant at the time of the deer’s visit, but several employees were present getting ready for the day.
















A manager for the restaurant says a motorist told employees he had hit the deer shortly before the animal began its journey to Subway.
















After leaving Subway, the deer reportedly visited a nearby Auto Center. The owner of the shop tells LancasterOnline that no one was injured in the incident but that more damage was caused.
















Sadly, local police report the deer did not survive the day’s events.
















This isn’t the first time a deer wreaked havoc on a place of business this week. On Monday, Consumerist reported on a deer going buck wild inside a furniture store in Cedar Falls, IA.
















Deer jumps through Columbia restaurant window [LancasterOnline]
































by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist















via Blogger http://ift.tt/1udDXYy







November 01, 2014 at 01:07AM







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9ANOt



November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1vpvgVP

November 01, 2014 at 01:56AM

Nissan Recalls 1,848 Infiniti Vehicles Over Defective Takata Airbags

Nissan Recalls 1,848 Infiniti Vehicles Over Defective Takata Airbags

Nissan Recalls 1,848 Infiniti Vehicles Over Defective Takata Airbags



Nissan Recalls 1,848 Infiniti Vehicles Over Defective Takata Airbags


























The number of vehicles recalled related to defective Takata airbags increased by more than 1,000 vehicles Friday, as Nissan issued a recall of luxury Infiniti vehicles.







According to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration notice [PDF], Nissan issued the recall after determining that 1,848 model year 2013 Infiniti QX56 and model year 2014 Infiniti QX80 vehicles may contain defective airbags made by the same company responsible for the recall of more than 8 million cars.
















Officials with Nissan say the vehicles’ airbags may have been manufactured with an incorrect part that could cause excessive inflator internal pressure that can lead to rupture during deployment. In the event of a crash this could cause inflator components to separate and potentially be propelled toward the interior of the vehicle, increasing a risk of injury.
















A defect report [PDF] from Nissan details that the manufacturer began looking into a potential issue back in June after General Motors recalled vehicles for a similar problem.
















Nissan then contacted Takata and requested further investigation to determine if Nissan vehicles were affected.
















In August, Nissan received a preliminary data set from Takata, detailing potentially misbuilt inflators. Nissan assessed its vehicles and in mid-October determined that select Infiniti models may contain the airbags.
















The Wall Street Journal reports that the timing of production for the recently recalled Infiniti models – which occurred between September 1, 2012 and April 26, 2013 – likely means the airbags are not the same as those responsible for at least four deaths and 30 injuries. Takata airbags related to earlier recalls were produced in 2007.
















Owners of affected vehicles will be notified of the issue next month and dealers will replace the front driver airbag inflator.
































by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist















via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sPF2







November 01, 2014 at 01:07AM







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9AOSw



November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1tp1Vy8

November 01, 2014 at 01:56AM

Walmart Shoplifter Threatens To Infect Employee With HIV

Walmart Shoplifter Threatens To Infect Employee With HIV

Walmart Shoplifter Threatens To Infect Employee With HIV



Walmart Shoplifter Threatens To Infect Employee With HIV


























A wannabe shoplifter at a Dallas Walmart somehow thought it would be a good idea to threaten a store employee with HIV infection rather than get in trouble for trying to pilfer $11 worth of frozen food from the retailer.







Police say that when the employee confronted the 25-year-old shopper about her purloined goods, the woman said she is HIV-positive and told the worker, “I can infect whomever I please.”
















The woman allegedly attacked the employee, who received some scratches on his face, but who is incredibly unlikely to have been infected during the confrontation.
















However, because police believe that the shoplifter was deliberately attempting to draw blood and expose the employee to HIV, she was charged with attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
















Had the shopper merely fessed up to the attempted shoplifting and accepted a ban from the store, it’s possible the arrest may have been avoided, as Walmart rarely prosecutes small-time shoplifting offenses. However, the woman also had a pair of outstanding arrest warrants, so once police got involved she was likely heading to lock-up regardless of whether the store prosecuted her.
















[via DallasNews.com]
































by Chris Morran via Consumerist















via Blogger http://ift.tt/1wOnhFX







November 01, 2014 at 01:07AM







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1udLVAX



November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1tp1TWS

November 01, 2014 at 01:56AM

Walmart Shoplifter Threatens To Infect Employee With HIV

Walmart Shoplifter Threatens To Infect Employee With HIV

Walmart Shoplifter Threatens To Infect Employee With HIV



Walmart Shoplifter Threatens To Infect Employee With HIV


























A wannabe shoplifter at a Dallas Walmart somehow thought it would be a good idea to threaten a store employee with HIV infection rather than get in trouble for trying to pilfer $11 worth of frozen food from the retailer.







Police say that when the employee confronted the 25-year-old shopper about her purloined goods, the woman said she is HIV-positive and told the worker, “I can infect whomever I please.”
















The woman allegedly attacked the employee, who received some scratches on his face, but who is incredibly unlikely to have been infected during the confrontation.
















However, because police believe that the shoplifter was deliberately attempting to draw blood and expose the employee to HIV, she was charged with attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
















Had the shopper merely fessed up to the attempted shoplifting and accepted a ban from the store, it’s possible the arrest may have been avoided, as Walmart rarely prosecutes small-time shoplifting offenses. However, the woman also had a pair of outstanding arrest warrants, so once police got involved she was likely heading to lock-up regardless of whether the store prosecuted her.
















[via DallasNews.com]
































by Chris Morran via Consumerist















via Blogger http://ift.tt/1wOnhFX







November 01, 2014 at 01:07AM







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sUbK



November 01, 2014 at 01:27AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1vpveNB

November 01, 2014 at 01:55AM

New Crash Test Dummies Will Gain A Few Pounds To Better Reflect Fatalities Of Obese Drivers

Humanetics announced this week that it will begin making an obese crash test dummy.

Humanetics announced this week that it will begin making an obese crash test dummy.



We’ve all seen the dummies used in tests to determine if vehicles are safe before hitting the streets. Remember that picture, because the dummies are getting a makeover to better represent Americans’ growing waistlines.


CNN reports that one of the world’s largest makers of dummies will soon provide an obese model in order to help determine why larger consumers are more likely to die in a car crash.


The new obese dummy, which will weigh about 273 pound and have a body mass index of 35, will be used to measure seatbelt and airbag loads generated during crashes. Traditional crash test dummies weigh 167 pounds.


Christopher O’Connor, president and CEO of Humanetics, tells CNN that the larger dummies were created after reports found that obese people are 78% more likely to die in a crash.


“The reason is the way we get fat,” he says. “We get fat in our middle range. And we get out of position in a typical seat.”


Officials with the Center for Injury Biometrics tell CNN that the idea behind the updated dummy is to do a better job of prediction injury.


O’Connor says a prototype of the new dummy has already been tested in Europe and are expected in the U.S. next year.


Are obese crash test dummies the key to preventing road deaths? [CNN]




by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

NY Pols Want Free Broadband For Public Housing, WiFi For Parks If Comcast Deal Approved


Usually by this point in the review process of a mega-merger like the one pending between Comcast and Time Warner Cable, there are discussions about things the parties are willing to do or give up in order to make the deal more palatable to critics. But because Comcast and TWC proactively offered to spin off some 3 million customers, and because Comcast already made a bunch of promises and concessions when it acquired NBC back in 2010, there hasn’t been much chatter. But some folks in New York are making known their demands for signing off on the deal.

Earlier this week, the NY Times reported [via DSLreports] that a group of city and leaders, with NYC public advocate Letitia James at the helm, are pushing for a commitment from Comcast to provide free broadband to the city’s public housing and to extend its low-cost Internet Essentials plan (which was created as a condition of the NBC deal).


While New York City might be the center of finance and commerce in the U.S., about 1/3 of households don’t have an Internet connection, highlighting the huge “digital divide” between the city’s wealthy residents and those who can’t afford broadband service.


In addition to the free service for public housing, the group wants gratis access at shelters for the city’s homeless and its victims of domestic violence.


While they’re at it, the pols are also calling for free WiFi in city parks, along with promises of faster connections.


And much like a group of U.S. Senators recently requested, the New York folks are asking Comcast to extend its current obligation to abide by the 2010 net neutrality rules, even though they were gutted earlier this year by a federal appeals court, and even though the FCC is currently working on more relaxed rules.


“We need our city to remain competitive in the 21st century,” explained James.


What right do these city and state politicians have to make these demands on Comcast? After all, they are not members of the FCC or the Justice Dept., the two federal regulators that are currently weighing the pros and cons of the merger.


Well, these folks have a lot of pull with the New York state Public Service Commission, which was informed of these requests on Wednesday.


The Commission could seek to block the merger in New York, which would effectively take away Comcast’s main reason for acquiring TWC — so that it can have a virtually continuous monopoly on broadband and cable from D.C. to Boston.


While Comcast would probably win in a legal battle with the Commission, it would be a delay and an expense the company doesn’t want. The company’s path of least resistance might be to give into some demands so it can acquire the customers and the geographic continuity it desires.


A rep for Comcast told the Times that it has been working closely with the Commission.


Meanwhile, in honor of Halloween, our colleagues at Consumers Union took out the below full-page ad this week, calling attention to the huge potential problems of the merger — higher prices, poor customer service — whether or not there are any concessions made:

Comcast.7.5x9.5.web_




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Petition Demands Big Banks Give Consumers Back Our Right To Sue

Petition Demands Big Banks Give Consumers Back Our Right To Sue





Since 2011, when the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that it was perfectly okay for companies to take away a consumer’s right to sue — and their ability to join other wronged consumers in a class action — by inserting a paragraph or two of text deep in lengthy, unchangeable contracts, the rush has been on for almost every major retailer, wireless provider, cable company, and financial institution to slap these mandatory binding arbitration clauses into their customer agreements. Now one petition is gathering signatures, calling on the nation’s largest banks to put an end to the practice.

For those not familiar with binding arbitration, it works like this: You’re wronged by a company; not just a customer service dispute, but a complaint where you have an actual legal dispute.




But you can’t sue, because 13 pages into a 23-page customer agreement (that you have no ability to change) there is a clause that says you and the company agree that all legal disputes will be handled, not in a court, but through an arbitration process, often with very strict limits on damages.




The companies claim this is all for everyone’s benefit, because arbitration moves much faster than going through the court system. It is, by its proponents’ own admission, biased in favor of the companies, which have lawyers on retainer and deep pockets against the consumers who frequently have no knowledge of the complicated process or the means to hire someone who does.




And since the damages are so low and the odds so stacked in the companies’ favor, few lawyers are willing to take on even the most legitimate dispute.




This problem is even more pronounced when the legal dispute involves a large group of customers who were all negatively affected in the same way.




Your credit card company has been overbilling a few million customers? Once upon a time, you could band together and sue as a class. But with around 95% of credit cardholders now bound by arbitration clauses, it’s more likely that each person would need to go through arbitration on his/her own.




Only a fraction of affected people will even attempt arbitration, and the company faces minimal damages, even if it was a massive cock-up.




In fact, in 2013 the Supreme Court effectively told companies they can get away with violating federal law, so long as it would cost too much money for a wronged consumer to prove the wrongdoing in arbitration.




In that case, a group of restaurants wanted to sue American Express for allegedly violating antitrust law by forcing businesses that accept AmEx charge cards to also accept the company’s credit and debit cards, for which the merchants say they pay higher rates than they do on competing credit cards and debit cards.




But AmEx uses forced arbitration clauses to keep customers — even its commercial customers — from suing as a class. Further, the cost of actually proving the antitrust case against the card company would have been significantly more than any individual business (A) could afford and (B) would ever receive in damages through arbitration.




Writing for the dissenting members of the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan said that her peers had basically just told Americans with valid legal complaints, “Too darn bad,” and that they had just given companies the tools to thwart federal antitrust law.




This is why the folks at Public Citizen have drafted a petition — which already has nearly 20,000 signatures — asking JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, US Bancorp and PNC Financial to remove arbitration clauses from their user agreements.




“Forced arbitration functions as a license to steal that makes it impossible for customers to hold you accountable in court if you break the law,” reads the petition. “Honor our rights and stop using forced arbitration.”




While we support the petition and believe that arbitration clauses need to be removed, the Supreme Court’s repeated blessing of the practice means that the only way it’s going to end is with Congress passing legislation declaring these clauses unconscionable, or at least outlining ways in which consumers can still seek legal action against companies that break the law.








by Chris Morran via Consumerist



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9AWl6

November 01, 2014 at 01:42AM

Florida Man Stuffs Chainsaw Up Shirt, Tries To Bicycle Away

Florida Man Stuffs Chainsaw Up Shirt, Tries To Bicycle Away


chainsawA few years ago, we shared the story of a bold shoplifter who thought that nobody would notice if he stuffed a chainsaw down his pants and tried to make a break for it. Someone will notice, as it turns out. In Florida, police say that a man tried to commit a similar crime this week, only with the chainsaw stuffed in his shirt. He did not succeed.




Yes, there is surveillance video with audio, which you can see at the Palm Beach Post. Warning: the video plays automatically when you open the page.




According to police, the man entered a hardware store and asked for change for a dollar, then picked up the chainsaw and left the store with it. Maybe it was his getaway method that was problematic: he fled the store on a bicycle. Police found the chainsaw in a vacant lot, but not the suspect. An employee of the store later helped police find him.




He has been charged with grand theft and burglary and is being held in the county jail.




Police: Man tried to steal a chainsaw by hiding it under his shirt [Palm Beach Post] (Warning: auto-play video)








by Laura Northrup via Consumerist



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9AXFt

November 01, 2014 at 01:42AM

Walmart Shoplifter Threatens To Infect Employee With HIV

Walmart Shoplifter Threatens To Infect Employee With HIV

Walmart Shoplifter Threatens To Infect Employee With HIV



Walmart Shoplifter Threatens To Infect Employee With HIV


























A wannabe shoplifter at a Dallas Walmart somehow thought it would be a good idea to threaten a store employee with HIV infection rather than get in trouble for trying to pilfer $11 worth of frozen food from the retailer.







Police say that when the employee confronted the 25-year-old shopper about her purloined goods, the woman said she is HIV-positive and told the worker, “I can infect whomever I please.”
















The woman allegedly attacked the employee, who received some scratches on his face, but who is incredibly unlikely to have been infected during the confrontation.
















However, because police believe that the shoplifter was deliberately attempting to draw blood and expose the employee to HIV, she was charged with attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
















Had the shopper merely fessed up to the attempted shoplifting and accepted a ban from the store, it’s possible the arrest may have been avoided, as Walmart rarely prosecutes small-time shoplifting offenses. However, the woman also had a pair of outstanding arrest warrants, so once police got involved she was likely heading to lock-up regardless of whether the store prosecuted her.
















[via DallasNews.com]
































by Chris Morran via Consumerist















via Blogger http://ift.tt/1wOnhFX







November 01, 2014 at 01:07AM







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sUbK



November 01, 2014 at 01:27AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1udM33o

November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM

28,980 Pounds Of Chicken Kiev Recalled For Connection With Salmonella Illness

28,980 Pounds Of Chicken Kiev Recalled For Connection With Salmonella Illness

28,980 Pounds Of Chicken Kiev Recalled For Connection With Salmonella Illness





kevin-40z-1 Sometimes you want Chicken Kiev but don’t feel like pounding out the chicken breasts, stuffing them with butter and herbs, and then cooking them. But if you’ve got some Antioch Farms Chicken Kiev sitting in your freezer, check the label because 29,000 pounds of the pre-stuffed chicken have been recalled for possible Salmonella contamination.








The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Aspen Foods, a division of Koch Meats in Chicago, recalled 28,980 pounds of partial prepared chicken products sold under the Antioch Farms brand.








The recall was initiated at the request of the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) after Minnesota health officials and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified a cluster of salmonella cases that appeared to be connected to the product.








According to the USDA notice, the Minnesota Health Department investigation identified six patients who reported being sick after consuming the chicken Kiev.








Samples of the product collected during the course of the investigation by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture tested positive for Salmonella Enteritidis.








Investigators were able to prove that the illness strain was indeed associated with the Antioch Farms chicken.








The single 5-ounce plastic packets of Raw Stuffed Chicken Breast Breaded, Boneless Breast of Chicken with Rib Meat “A La Kiev” comes with sell by dates of October 1 and October 7, 2015. The product also bears the establishment number “P-1258″ inside the USDA mark.








Supermarkets that sold the product include Albertson’s, Shaws, Cub Foods and other retailers. A full list of retailers can be found online.








The product was shipped to stores in Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Nevada, Rhode Island, Vermont, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming.








The USDA reports that consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after eating the contaminated product. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health care provider.








Illinois Firm Recalls Chicken Products Due to Possible Salmonella Enteritidis Contamination [USDA]
















by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1udE72f



November 01, 2014 at 01:08AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1udM2fT

November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM

UPS Driver Kicks Fragile Package, Is Caught On Camera

UPS Driver Kicks Fragile Package, Is Caught On Camera

UPS Driver Kicks Fragile Package, Is Caught On Camera





package_kickerWe at Consumerist have wondered for years now why courier service drivers haven’t yet figured out that business and residential customers alike have security cameras. Like the office on Long Island that caught a UPS driver kicking and shoving a delicate box back to the truck when they had to refuse the delivery.








Inside the box was a nitrogen calibration system worth about $12,000, according to the would-be recipient. It had been sent “cash on delivery,” and their policy is to not accept such shipments, because the company probably doesn’t just keep twelve grand in the receptionist’s desk.








You can see on the video that the driver is not thrilled that the large box has to go back to the truck, and let his frustrations out on the innocent box. He kicked, shoved, and rolled it, which raises the inevitable question of how he got it to the office entrance in the first place.



















UPS, of course, delivers millions of packages safely all over the world every day, and I am not just saying that just because I’m at home right now waiting to sign for an important UPS package. Even the company that filmed the box-kicker admits that they receive shipments daily, and have never had a similar problem before.








When contacted about the video, a UPS representative said that this isn’t acceptable handling for any package, let alone one that’s so valuable. “UPS does not condone this specific driver’s behavior,” they told WCBS in New York City. “We are investigating the issue and will take corrective action with this driver.”








UPS Driver Caught On Video Kicking Package [WCBS]
















by Laura Northrup via Consumerist







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sSka



November 01, 2014 at 01:08AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9ATWt

November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM

Disney’s Search Engine Patent Lumps Movie Piracy In With Child Porn

Disney’s Search Engine Patent Lumps Movie Piracy In With Child Porn

Disney’s Search Engine Patent Lumps Movie Piracy In With Child Porn












The folks at Disney have patented a search engine that ranks and filters out results based on “authenticity” metrics, allowing it to exclude “undesirable” results, which it describes only as “results referencing piracy websites, child pornography websites, and/or the like,” lumping in people trying to watch Finding Nemo for free with dangerous sexual predators.



“[S]imply measuring the number of times a web page is visited or using a popularity index might not accurately convey the utility of a web page to the user performing a search,” reads the approved patent application for Disney’s “Online content ranking system based on authenticity metric values for web elements.”








The application explains that, rather than turn up legitimate sources of the things for which people search, the results “might return references to pages of disreputable sellers and even references to pages designed to push malware to a user’s computer, which may have nothing to do with the desired search.”








Among the various ideas presented in the patent is the notion that “official” websites would be ranked higher than sites that may be more popular or have more links back to them.








It gives the example of the official Disney website page for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs versus an online encyclopedia page for the movie.








When we searched for the movie using Google, the Wikipedia entry was indeed the first link, followed by its imdb.com page, with a Disney website coming in third in the results.








But under the patented search engine, the Disney site, “may be associated with an authenticity weight that is greater than the authenticity weight associated with the encyclopedia web page because Disney.go.com is the official domain for The Walt Disney Company. As such, with respect to the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs film, the Disney.go.com web page may be considered more authoritative (and thus more authentic) than the encyclopedia web page.”








This is a stance that many companies and public figures have tried, to no avail, to convince Google to take, claiming that when someone searches for “Brand XYZ” or “Specific Former Pennsylvania Senator with Unique Last Name,” users are likely looking for the websites for Brand XYX or that Senator, not a retailer who might carry that brand or a scatological slang definition of that politician’s last name.








It’s not known if Disney intends to launch a new search engine — it has one of its own, but it only works on Disney sites — or if this is something it hopes to sell to a company like Google or Microsoft.








For its part, Google — which maintains that most pirates don’t use search engines to find free content — has been trying to demote search results for pirated material. and will promote legitimate sources of content if it’s paid to do so.








[via TorrentFreak]
















by Chris Morran via Consumerist







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sRwC



November 01, 2014 at 01:08AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1udM0Vl

November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM

Ferrari To Pay $3.5M Penalty For Failure To Submit Fatality Reports To NHTSA For Three Years

Ferrari To Pay $3.5M Penalty For Failure To Submit Fatality Reports To NHTSA For Three Years

Ferrari To Pay $3.5M Penalty For Failure To Submit Fatality Reports To NHTSA For Three Years





(Ian)



(Ian)












As we’ve reported previously, car manufacturers are required to report death and injury claims to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration so that the agency can identify potentially fatal and dangerous defects. Failing to submit those reports not only endangers drivers, it can cost a pretty penny for auto makers. Just ask Ferrari, the high-end carmaker must pay a $3.5 million penalty for its inaction.



NHTSA announced that Ferrari will pay the hefty fine and revise its reporting procedures as a result of failing to submit early warning reports [EWR] that included three fatalities.








Ferrari, a subsidiary of Chrysler Fiat, admitted that it violated federal law when, for three years, it failed to submit required safety information to the agency.








While Ferrari once qualified as a small volume manufacturer and was not required to file quarterly reports with NHTSA, that status changed when Chrysler was acquired by Fiat in 2011.








Additionally, all car manufacturers are required to submit fatal accidents no matter their volume size.








“There is no excuse for failing to follow laws created to keep drivers safe, and our aggressive enforcement action today underscores the point that all automakers will be held accountable if they fail to do their part in our mission to keep Americans safe on the road,” Anthony Foxx, U.S. Transportation Secretary, says in a NHTSA statement.








Under the settlement, Ferrari must improve its processes for EWR reporting, to train personnel on the EWR requirements, to communicate these improvements to NHTSA, and to retroactively submit all EWR reports.








NHTSA Fines Ferrari $3.5 Million for Failing to Submit Early Warning Reports [NHTSA]
















by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sP7V



November 01, 2014 at 01:08AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9AQdg

November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM

Review Of Dunkin’ Donuts Not-A-Cronut: It’s The Lookalike Pet Parents Buy When Real One Dies

Review Of Dunkin’ Donuts Not-A-Cronut: It’s The Lookalike Pet Parents Buy When Real One Dies

Review Of Dunkin’ Donuts Not-A-Cronut: It’s The Lookalike Pet Parents Buy When Real One Dies





notacronut Earlier this week, Dunkin’ Donuts announced that it was jumping on the call-it-anything-but-a-Cronut craze by offering its own croissant/donut hybrid. Alas, the early word from one fan of the original Cronut is not so appetizing.








Over at People.com, writer and food-tasting guinea pig Mark Marino — a self-described aficionado of the actual Cronuts created by NYC pastry chef Dominique Ansel — put the DD “crossaint-donut” to the test, with not-so-favorable results.








“The company claims it’s not ‘copying a specific bakery in New York’ with its holey creation, and I believe them,” he writes, “mainly because the Duncrodonsant… looks and tastes nothing like a Cronut.”








Marino likens the experience of eating a Fauxnut to parents’ failed attempts to placate children when their pet parakeet dies.








“[Y]our parents run out and buy a new one but try to convince you it’s the same bird even though it is bigger and has different markings and bears no resemblance the original bird,” he writes. “It’s kind of like that.”








As for his specific issues with the DD product, Marino cites the chain’s decision to glaze its creation, as opposed to Ansel’s unglazed Cronuts, which only have a light layer of frosting on top and a dusting of sugar on the sides.








But the problems aren’t just crust-deep, according to the review. While one should be able to peel apart the flaky layers of a croissant/donut thingy, the DD version contains “dense, yeasty layers” and “just tastes like a regular glazed donut.”








Marino writes that it’s not a bad thing, but concludes, “I definitely wouldn’t wait in line at 5:30 a.m. for one. Unless I had to kill time waiting for PetSmart to open so I could buy a replacement parakeet.”








No word yet on whether Ansel’s lawyers have sent Dunkin’ a cease-and-desist letter over its not-a-Cronut.
















by Chris Morran via Consumerist







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1udE0U7



November 01, 2014 at 01:08AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9ARO7

November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM

Does Using Someone Else’s Costco Card To Steal From Store Count As Burglary?

Does Using Someone Else’s Costco Card To Steal From Store Count As Burglary?

Does Using Someone Else’s Costco Card To Steal From Store Count As Burglary?












When you leave a store without having paid for something, you’ve likely committed the crime of theft, but if you use someone else’s card to get into a warehouse club like Costco or Sam’s Club and then walk out of the store without paying for items in your bag, have you also committed the crime of burglary? A New Mexico appeals court says no, but it depends on where you live.



Back in 2010, a group of people in New Mexico — none of them Costco members — flashed a membership card on their way into an Albuquerque-area store. And while perusing the oversized aisles, they stashed some items in a purse belonging to a woman in the group.








They did pay for some bottled water and ice cream, but didn’t pay for the items put into the purse, so a loss-prevention employee stopped them.








In 2012, some members of the group were found guilty of burglary, which New Mexico state law defines, in part, as “unauthorized entry of any vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure, movable or immovable, with the intent to commit any felony or theft therein.”








Prosecutors argued that the crime rose to the level of burglary because the shoplifters had no right to enter the store since they were not Costco members. Thus, use of someone else’s card constituted an unauthorized entry by fraud, deceit, or pretense.








But a state appeals court panel unanimously reversed that conviction earlier this year, ruling that “retail stores are open to the public during business hours and, therefore, an individual who enters a retail store with the intent to shoplift is not guilty of burglary.”








In their opinion, recently published in Bar Bulletin [PDF, see p. 25], the appeals panel pointed to conflicting testimony provided by two Costco employees during the trial.








One greeter first testified that members of the public are not allowed inside Costco without a membership, but also told the court that it isn’t routine or in her “job description” to check the photos on membership cards, agreeing that a “ten-year-old Costco card, a friend’s card, [or] a card they found on the street” could be used to enter the store.








A second employee, this one from loss-prevention, also testified that only members could enter the store but later clarified that the store policy really just meant that non-members “cannot make purchases.”








“Notwithstanding Costco’s membership policies, we discern no particular security or privacy interest at stake inside Costco that justifies recognizing a departure from the general rule that we presume retail stores to be open to the public,” reads the appeals court’s opinion.








While Costco shoppers pay a membership fee to enjoy the benefits of buying in bulk from the store, the court claims that, “Once inside, the store is similar to any other retail store in that merchandise is presented for the shopping public to purchase.”








Thus, explains the panel, using someone else’s card to enter a Costco or similar store does not engender “the feeling of violation and vulnerability” normally associated with the crime of burglary.








The court also pointed out that there is no security purpose to the membership requirement, as there are already laws against trespassing and theft.








“Defendant’s entry into Costco during business hours, albeit deceptive, granted him access to an otherwise open shopping area, as opposed to an area ‘where things are stored and personal items can be kept private,'” writes the court. “Thus, as far as the privacy and security interests of the store itself are concerned, we see no heightened or unique security or privacy interest that distinguishes Costco from other retail stores that we generally consider open to the public.”








Commenting on the implications of assuming that faking your way into Costco may raise a petty theft to charge to the level of burglary, the panel concludes, “It would be an absurd application of our burglary statute to punish those who shoplift from Sam’s Club more severely than those who shoplift from Walmart.”








At the same time, the court acknowledges that some states have a much broader definition of burglary, citing the California criminal code, which states that “Every person who enters any store with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.”








In that case, the definition is so broad that it doesn’t matter whether you use someone else’s card or your own Costco ID; if you go into the store to steal, you’ve committed a burglary in California.








[via ABQjournal.com]
















by Chris Morran via Consumerist







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sOkC



November 01, 2014 at 01:07AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9AOlF

November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM

Developmentally Disabled Man Falls Over Mall Railing, Dies

Developmentally Disabled Man Falls Over Mall Railing, Dies

Developmentally Disabled Man Falls Over Mall Railing, Dies












Police say that what happened yesterday at the Palisades Center mall in the suburbs of New York City was a terrible accident. Residents from a nearby group home for developmentally disabled adults were on a trip to the local mall, and somehow––nobody knows quite how yet––one of the residents fell over a third-floor railing, landing at the bottom of an escalator near the Best Buy store. He died on the scene.



The group was on a trip meant to get people with developmental disabilities out in the community, called “habilitation.” Police hadn’t yet announced the identity of the man or of the group home as of late last night, since his family had not yet been identified. “The safety of the individuals in our care is paramount and we are doing everything we can to help determine what led to this terrible accident,” a statement from the social services agency that runs the home, New York Foundling, said in part.








Police say that the man had been standing near a railing next to the escalator bank on the third floor, near Best Buy. Then he wasn’t. Shoppers made a flurry of calls to 911 to report the accident. The man was pronounced dead at the scene. Police believe that he fell, rather than jumping or being pushed, but they will investigate.








Group home resident falls to death in Palisades Center mall [Journal News]
















by Laura Northrup via Consumerist







via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9sO3S



November 01, 2014 at 01:07AM



via Blogger http://ift.tt/1q9AO59

November 01, 2014 at 01:34AM