uHow Important Is It To Wash New Clothes Before Wearing Them?r

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Jack Deem)

  Though sometimes you just can’t wait to rip the tags off that new shirt and wear it out for the world to see, you also may’ve had that moment of, “I should probably wash this before I wear it… oh well.” So how important is it to to give your new duds a dunk in the washing machine before it comes in contact with your skin?

  The short answer: Pretty important if you don’t like itchy, scaly, red rashes. Due to varying laws from country to country on the allowable levels of chemicals in fabric, your clothing could be hopping around the globe carrying various substances that might irritate your skin, reports the Wall Street Journal.

  According to Donald Belsito, a professor of dermatology at Columbia University Medical Center in New York with a specialty in contact dermatitis, sometimes you might even want to wash new clothing more than once before wearing it.

  Many synthetic textiles get their hues from azo-aniline dyes, which can cause a severe skin reaction if you’re allergic to it and a less intense, yet still irritating reaction of itchy, dry patches of skin where it touches your skin.

  It might take more than one washing to rinse out the dye, so you could get itchy red spots “especially near the areas where there is friction or sweating, like the waist, neck and thighs and around the armpits,” Dr. Belsito told the WSJ.

  If you’re actually allergic to those dyes, he says you might need to avoid them altogether as it could be stubborn about leaving even after multiple washings.

  Another irritant could be formaldehyde resins used to keep blends from wrinkling and cut down on mildew. These resins can cause two forms of eczema — allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis — both which have symptoms like flaky skin and rashes.

  You also don’t know who’s been touching your clothing or trying it on in the store before it comes home with you, making it possible that germs and other critters could be hiding out in the fabric.

  “I have seen cases of lice that were possibly transmitted from trying on in the store, and there are certain infectious diseases that can be passed on through clothing,” Dr. Belsito says, nothing that scabies can also infest clothing.

  Dr. Belsito’s advice is to wash all new clothing at least once with a double rinse before wearing, no matter what the fabric.

  “In terms of hygiene, it’s a very good thing to do,” he says. “Being a dermatologist, I’ve seen examples of some strange stuff, so I don’t take any chances.”

  Do You Need to Wash New Clothes Before Wearing Them? [Wall Street Journal]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uWarrant: Researcher Claims He Commandeered Flight Through In-Flight Entertainment Systemr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (frankieleon)

  Nearly a month after a government report identified security weaknesses within the airline industry, including the possibility that newer airplanes with interconnected WiFi systems could be hacked, a recently obtained Federal Bureau of Investigation search warrant shows a security researcher claims he briefly took control of an aircraft after hacking into the plane’s in-flight entertainment system.

  Wired reports that Chris Roberts – the same researcher who was kicked off a United Airlines flight last month after Tweeting that he might hack into that flight’s network – was approached by federal investigators in February and questioned about his testing of in-flight network vulnerabilities.

  According to an application [PDF] for a search warrant filed by the FBI – and obtained by Canadian news outlet APTN – Roberts told authorities that he had hacked the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system of several planes over the past 3 years.

  The search warrant application was filed after Roberts was removed from the Chicago to Syracuse, NY, United flight in mid-April and authorities confiscated two laptops and several hard drives and USB sticks.

  “He compromised the IFE systems approximately 15 to 20 times during the time period 2011 to 2014,” the search warrant applications states. “Each of the compromises occurred on airplanes equipped with IFE systems with video monitors installed in the passenger seat backs.”

  Roberts reportedly obtained access to the networks through the Seat Electronic Box (SEB) located under passenger seats on certain aircraft. After removing the SEB cover he allegedly connected a modified ethernet cable from the box to his laptop.

  “He then connected to other systems on the airplane network after exploited/gained access to, or “hacked” the IFE system,” the application states.

  In one specific instance, the affidavit states that Roberts told agents “he overwrote code on the airplane’s Thrust Management Computer while aboard a flight. He stated that he successfully commanded the system he had accessed to issue the “CLB” or climb command.”

  By issuing the command, Roberts allegedly told agents he was able to cause the airplane engines to climb, resulting in a lateral or sideways movement of the plane during the flight.

  Roberts tells Wired that some of the information contained in the affidavit was taken out of context by agents.

  “That paragraph that’s in there is one paragraph out of a lot of discussions, so there is context that is obviously missing which obviously I can’t say anything about,” he said. “It would appear from what I’ve seen that the federal guys took one paragraph out of a lot of discussions and a lot of meetings and notes and just chose that one as opposed to plenty of others.”

  He tells Wired that conversations depicted in the application were a result of two FBI requested sit-down interviews in February regarding his and a partner’s research related to vulnerabilities in aircraft network systems.

  Roberts said that agents had wanted to know what was possible and what he and his colleague had done to test such vulnerabilities. At that time, he says he disclosed that they were able to sniff the data traffic on more than a dozen flights after connecting their laptops to the infotainment networks, but didn’t say he was able to override code on the flight.

  Instead, he told Wired that the researchers had only tested modifications to avionic systems ons simulation devices, never an actual plane.

  Roberts denied trying to access the United aircraft’s in-flight system after being removed from the flight in April.

  Wired reports that he told agents that the laptops and thumb drives he was carrying during the flight included “nasty” malware and schematics for the wiring systems of a variety of airplanes – all of which he says is standard for a security researcher to have.

  However, an FBI agent who later examined the plane said he found the SEBs under the seats where Roberts had been sitting showed signs of tampering. That issue, coupled with the his knowledge of flight systems, led the FBI to believe he “had the ability and the willingness to use the equipment then with him to access or attempt to access the IFE and possibly the flight control systems on any aircraft equipped with an IFE systems, and that it would endanger public safety to allow him to leave the Syracuse airport that evening with that equipment.”

  Still, while Roberts admits he had information on him during the flight, he maintains that he never messed with that particular plane’s SEB boxes. Instead, he contends that the boxes under the seats routinely come in contact with luggage and other passenger possessing, which could have resulted in scuff marks and cracks.

  Following Roberts’ tweet in mid-April and the release of the Government Accountability Office report on potential weaknesses in aircraft in-flight networks, the FBI and Transportation Security Administration issued an alert warning airlines to be vigilant about monitoring for such threats.

  Feds Say That Banned Researcher Commandeered a Plane [Wired]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uNorth Carolina Sues FCC To Keep Limits On Municipal Broadbandr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Ken Fager)

  It’s been a big year for North Carolina in terms of improving the Internet connections for many of its residents. Google Fiber will bring new options to multiple markets in the state, and the FCC acted against a state law that limits municipal broadband providers from expanding their services. But rather than acknowledge that maybe it shouldn’t let Time Warner Cable dictate state laws, North Carolina has sued the FCC.

  Last week, the state filed a petition [PDF] with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking review of the FCC order from February that allows the city of Wilson, NC, to expand its municipal broadband network outside of its home county.

  Even though Wilson’s city-operated power company was selling service to six other counties, a 2011 state law, backed by Time Warner Cable, prohibited the city from offering its broadband service outside the county border. The city said it had been forced to deny multiple requests for service because of this law.

  In February, the FCC voted to preempt that state law, and a similar one in Tennessee, saying that they were in conflict with the FCC’s statutory obligation to encourage the deployment of high-speed Internet connections.

  The state’s petition alleges that the FCC “unlawfully inserted itself between the State and the State’s political subdivisions,” that the Commission overstepped its authority, and that the order is “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act.”

  The FCC (or at least the three commissioners who voted in favor of this order) has maintained that federal law gives it the authority to intervene when a state or local statute inhibits the deployment of broadband.

  Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act states that all state agencies in charge of regulating telecommunications “shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced
  telecommunications capability to all Americans… by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.”

  That law also dictates that if the FCC finds that broadband is not being adequately deployed to all Americans, if shall take “immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”

  North Carolina isn’t alone in wanting to bar cities and counties from offering residents choice in broadband services. More than 20 states have laws that severely limit or outright ban municipalities from selling broadband to consumers.

  [via Ars Technica]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uThe RadioShack Bankruptcy Consumer Privacy Report Is Outr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Phillip Pessar)

  The most controversial part of the RadioShack bankruptcy auction has been the proposed sale of the company’s extensive collection of e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and mailing addresses. Everyone from Apple to most states’ attorneys general objects to this sale, which goes against the company’s privacy policy. That’s why the bankruptcy court appointed a privacy ombudsman to evaluate the situation and lay out some rules for how that information will be passed to the new owners of the RadioShack brand…or not.

  Here’s the problem: some companies, notably the wireless carrier AT&T and device maker Apple, have objected to the sale of their customers’ data, and want it removed from the sale. If someone only happened to buy an AT&T iPhone at a RadioShack store, for example, their information wouldn’t be handed over to the new owners. However, representatives of RadioShack and of liquidator Hilco Streambank say that this isn’t possible: when customer information was added to the database, the retailer didn’t keep track of whether the customer came from a new mobile phone contract or buying batteries.

  If you bought something at RadioShack or on their website and gave them your e-mail address (or used an account that already had your e-mail address associated with it) in the last two years, the Shack would be able to sell your e-mail address. There’s a five-year time limit on mailing addresses and phone numbers.

  Not all information would be allowed to go along with each entry on the mailing list. Assuming that you didn’t opt out, here’s what information about you, a RadioShack customer, would go to the company’s new owners along with your name, address, mailing address, and/or phone number:

  • Which store you shopped at
  • The date and time
  • The SKU number, description, and selling price (what you bought and how much you paid for it)
  • How you paid
  • The total on your receipt

  The FTC submitted a letter meant to be part of the privacy ombudsman’s report where the agency recommends affirmative consent to being put on the new owners’ mailing lists: that means that customers would receive a notice that their name is on a list that had been sold, and they wouldn’t receive any more mail unless they opted in to receiving it.

  The privacy ombudsman, on the other hand, recommends an opt-out policy, where customers who are on the list and who have shopped at RadioShack within the time limit will receive a message giving them the opportunity to leave the list. Notices about this will also be displayed at the cash registers at SprintShack stores.

  REPORT OF THE CONSUMER PRIVACY OMBUDSMAN [PDF]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uUnder Armour Pulls “Band Of Ballers” Shirt Amid Criticism That It Echoes Iwo Jima Imageryr

4 4 4 9

• Under Armour is apologizing and promising to stop selling a T-shirt dubbed “Band of Ballers” after complaints that its image of basketball players raising a hoop closely mirrored the style of the Marine Corps War Memorial. That memorial is based on a famous photograph taken of soldiers raising a U.S. flag on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima during World War II.

  Complaints online accused the company of being disrespectful to the military, Bloomberg reports, prompting Under Armour to apologize over the weekend.

  “We deeply regret and apologize that a T-shirt that was not reflective of our values in honoring and supporting our country’s heroes went on sale,” the company said in a statement. “We have taken immediate action to remove it from retail and will take great measures to ensure this does not happen again.”
  

  

  (Ron Cogswell)

  To rub salt in the wound, Under Armour has maintained a relationship with military groups, including the Wounded Warrior project.

  “Supporting those who serve our country has been part of our brand’s DNA since the very beginning,” the company said.

  Under Armour isn’t the first company to raise objections over questionable merchandise (and it likely won’t be the last): Just recently, Urban Outfitters came under fire for selling a tapestry that looks like a concentration camp uniform in February, and drew criticism last year for selling a blood-spattered Kent State sweatshirt.

  Zara also pulled a shirt last year that was likened to a concentration camp uniform, and H&M stopped selling a shirt that featured a skull emblazoned on a Star of David.

  Under Armour Pulls ‘Band of Ballers’ Shirt After Outcry [Bloomberg]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uThe People Of Minneapolis May Someday Get To Choose Something Other Than Comcastr

4 4 4 9

• 

  This is what fixed-line broadband competition (or lack thereof) looks like in Minneapolis.

  A year ago, when we investigated the sad state of broadband competition in the U.S., Minneapolis was one of the markets we mapped to to show just how few choices people had. As you can see from the map above, the city is almost exclusively Comcast territory, but that may change over the next five years thanks to a recent city council vote.

  On Friday, Minneapolis city leadership voted to offer CenturyLink the ability to come in and provide a second option for cable and Internet access in the city. Though it could take some time for any real change to occur.

  The rollout will begin in June, reports the Star Tribune, with the target of 15% availability in two years. The original goal had been double that level of penetration. However, if enough people switch to CenturyLink in the early stages, the company could be required to expand its network.

  The ultimate goal is for CL service to be available citywide within five years.

  The company acknowledges that it’s starting from scratch and says it’s going to have to be competitive in order to win customers over.

  “Because we are coming on the market with zero customers, we’re going to have to do something that’s a compelling financial opportunity for buyers,” a regional VP for CenturyLink said following the council vote.

  Comcast, which has repeatedly stated that the pay-TV and broadband markets are robust and competitive in the U.S., doesn’t seem thrilled with the news that it will actually have to face competition.

  Its franchise agreement requires that it make service available to all residents in Minneapolis, and Comcast is upset that this mandate isn’t immediately being slapped on CenturyLink.

  “We are disappointed that CenturyLink is not being held to the same terms and conditions as our existing agreement with the city, contrary to Minnesota state law,” said a Comcast exec to the Star Tribune. “We will continue to review our options in light of today’s City Council vote.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uCompany Behind Gucci, Other Luxury Brands Suing Alibaba Over Claims Of Counterfeit Goodsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  Not a counterfeit dog. (Hammerin Man)

  Fighting the rising tide of counterfeit goods is a constant battle for luxury brands, and a big priority if they want to stay in business. That’s why a French company behind luxury brands like Gucci, Balenciaga, Bottega Veneta and sportswear names like Puma is suing Chinese online marketplace Alibaba, claiming it’s making it easy for customers to buy counterfeit goods in bulk through its websites.

  Kering Group and Alibaba had previously tried to come to a solution out of court, but it seems Kering wasn’t satisfied with that route, reports BBC News.

  “We continue to work in partnership with numerous brands to help them protect their intellectual property, and we have a strong track record of doing so,” Alibaba said in a statement, saying it planned to fight the case and is already moving against fake goods. “Unfortunately, Kering Group has chosen the path of wasteful litigation instead of the path of constructive co-operation.”

  Alibaba has been in hot water before over accusations that it enables illegal sales on its platform: In January, after the Chinese government accused Alibaba of taking bribes and selling counterfeit products, Alibaba pledged to step up its anti-counterfeit measures on its sites, including the eBay-esque Taobao.

  Kering first took legal steps against Alibaba in July but dropped the case when the two sides decided to work together to tackle the counterfeit problem. That hasn’t worked out so well, it seems, as Kering filed its latest lengthy complaint with a New York City court.

  In one example Kering gives, the company says Alibaba allowed a merchant to use Taobao to “openly sell” wholesale quantities of “obviously fake Gucci products.” Kering claims the merchant was peddling a branded Gucci handbag in a minimum of 2,000 in an order for $2-$5, while those bags are usually sold for $795 each.

  Kering also points to watches that have a Gucci logo on them that show up when users search for “replica wristwatches.”

  “[The merchant] sells its counterfeit watch for $10-$80 per piece,” the complaint states.”This seller requires a minimum purchase of 300 pieces per order and can supply up to 200,000 pieces per month. The authentic Gucci watch retails for $960.”

  This is just a small slice of the problem pie, Kering claims.

  “These specifically identifiable counterfeit products could not be sold without their assistance, but instead of shutting down the counterfeiters, the Alibaba defendants seek to profit from the counterfeiters’ blatant violations,” it states. “The Alibaba defendants knowingly assist these counterfeiters in virtually all aspects of their illegal operations.”

  Alibaba maintains that it’s working hard to enforce a “zero tolerance policy” towards fakes.

  “We conduct periodic checks by using third parties to identify suspected counterfeit products on our marketplaces,” said Joe Tsai, the firm’s vice-chairman said on a recent call with bank analysts. “[And] when we receive complaints or allegations regarding infringement for counterfeit groups, we follow well-developed procedures to take strict action. If allegations are posting or selling counterfeit products are substantiated, we penalize the parties involved through a number of means, including enforcing the seller to reimburse the buyer, assessing penalties against the seller by limiting their ability to add listings, adopting a name-and-shame policy and closing down store fronts and permanently banning the seller from establishing another store front.”

  Gucci sues Alibaba over ‘counterfeit goods’ [BBC News]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist