вторник, 16 июня 2015 г.

uStarbucks Expands Mobile Ordering To 3,400 More Stores In 21 Statesr


4 4 4 9
  • (emilybean)

    (emilybean)

    Three months after Starbucks began allowing residents in the Pacific Northwest to order and pay for their java without any (or hardly any) human contact, the coffee chain plans to take its mobile ordering service across the country by expanding to 21 states.

    The Seattle Times reports that the ability to preorder through Starbucks’ iOS mobile app will be available at 3,400 additional stores this month.

    Following a three-month pilot in Portland, OR, Starbucks began allowing the service to be used at 600 stores in Washington, Alaska, Oregon and Idaho in March.

    Stores where mobile ordering is now available are located in Alabama, Arizona, south and central California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming

    Starbucks says [PDF] it plans to expand the service to the remainder of its company-owned stores later this year.

    While the service is still only available on Starbucks’ iOS app, the company says an Android app could launch later this year, the Seattle Times reports.

    When Starbucks first began testing the service it said users could select coffee or food while in line or before coming into the cafe, a move that officials say could speed up service and save you precious time.

    The program will count down when your beverage is due to the minute.

    There’s still no word on exactly what proper etiquette for using the service will be: can you simply jump the line if something is wrong with your pre-ordered beverage?

    Starbucks deploys mobile ordering in 3,400 more U.S. stores [The Seattle Times]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uInnocent Cox Customers Fighting To Prevent Personal Info From Being Turned Over In Piracy Lawsuitr


4 4 4 9
  • Imagine you get a letter from your Internet service provider giving you some odd news: You’re not being accused of piracy, but there’s a court order demanding that the ISP hand over your information to a copyright holder who thinks you might be a pirate. That’s the case for several Cox customers who have been caught up in a lawsuit between the cable company and a mammoth music publisher.

    Back in 2014, BMG Rights Management sued Cox [PDF] in federal court, alleging that the ISP had not done its duty under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to stop repeat offenders from stealing copyrighted music.

    “Cox has continued to permit its repeat infringer subscribers to use the Cox network to continue to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights without consequence,” reads the complaint.

    As part of this lawsuit, BMG identified what it believed were the 15,000 IP addresses that did the most pirating. The company was granted a court order requiring that Cox turn over information about the “Top 250 IP Addresses recorded to have infringed in the six months prior to filing the Complaint.”

    And so Cox sent a letter to those customers telling them that “Our records indicate that one of the IP addresses listed is currently assigned to your Cox account,” and giving customers until June 8 to file an objection or show their intent to object.

    “Because this matter involves litigation, our Customer Care staff will not be able to assist you with questions you may have. We regret being placed in the position of sending this letter, but want you to have every opportunity to protect your interests. We are not permitted to give you legal advice and encourage you to consult an attorney immediately.”

    And many Cox customers replied. A document made public this morning includes letters from multiple subscribers explaining why they believe their information should not be provided to BMG.

    “I’m currently serving in the United States Navy at this time,” reads one. “I didn’t have Cox service at that time frame due to me being on military deployment with USS Carl Vinson from August 24, 2104-April 10, 2015. I started my Cox account on April 30, 2015 and was issued that IP address.”

    Several customers note that they were not Cox customers until after the lawsuit was filed in Nov. 2014, so they could’t be the account-holder for whom BMG seeks information. A former Cox employee says in her letter that her home IP address does not actually match up with the one listed in the subpoena.

    Explains another letter, from an octogenarian in Arizona, “I don’t know why this information is requested… I only use my computer for Facebook, Skype and Gmail. I have mild Alzheimer’s/dementia and feel this was a scam.”

    A second 80-year-old says that they had their in-home WiFi network “set to public not knowing that it needed to be secured. Apparently everyone in my neighborhood has had access to my network.”

    Similarly, one couple caught up in this mess say they are victims of their own naiveté.

    “My husband and I made the enormous mistake of having basically the easiest password someone can have on our wifi,” reads the letter. “We calculated the risk of this to be slim to none and realize we have made a terrible mistake… When the evidence that the plaintiff has Is nothing more than an IP address, it is a certainty that there will be a considerable amount of people that are innocent of wrong-doing and I beg you not to ignore that fact as we are definitely in that category.”

    Cox is currently awaiting further instruction from the court on how to handle the information of these customers who filed objections.

    [via TorrentFreak.com]



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uBurger King Celebrates Summer With Mass-Produced Pulled Pork Hoagiesr


4 4 4 9
  • pulled_porkI don’t know about you, but when I think “classic American barbecue dishes,” I think “Burger King.” Except…no, that isn’t really true of anyone, is it? Yet the company still thinks that the mass-production of their “extra long pork sandwich” is a good idea, and is inflicting it on the American public.

    They probably know that your inner 12-year-old is giggling at the name “extra long pork sandwich,” too. The item uses the same toasted oval bun as the re-introduced Yumbo hot ham and cheese sandwich, and this is not the first time that the chain has experimented with serving pulled pork.

    Three years ago, they served up a pulled pork sandwich on their “artisan” bun, which reviewer Q over at Brand Eating said could have been pretty good, but the pork was overcooked and “paste-like” in parts, and the texture was off. The highlight of that sandwich was the bun, so it will be interesting to see if they’ve improved the pulled pork recipe. If they haven’t, it will be interesting to see how the long bun holds up under mushy pulled-pork pressure.

    Burger King Introduces Extra Long Pulled Pork Sandwich for Summer [Brand Eating]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uFDA Says Artificial Trans-Fat No Longer Approved For Use In Foodr


4 4 4 9
  • Artificial trans fats are believed to promote coronary disease by increasing the amount of bad cholesterol in the blood while decreasing the levels of good cholesterol. While the use of partially hydrogenated oils — the largest dietary source of these trans fats — has dropped significantly in the last decade, there is still concern about their continued use and the impact it’s having on consumer health. Today, the FDA declared that these oils are no long “generally recognized as safe” [GRAS] for use in human food and is giving manufacturers three years to eliminate them from prepared food products.

    Today’s declaratory order [PDF] is a finalization of the FDA’s 2013 tentative determination that these oils are not GRAS and should be consumed as rarely as possible.

    Manufacturers now have until June 18, 2018 to comply with the order. During this period, companies may petition the FDA if they believe that specific uses of a partially hydrogenated oil should be permitted. After the deadline, only uses specifically approved by the FDA will be allowed.

    For nearly a decade, the FDA has required that prepared food companies provide information on trans fat content in their products. By 2012, consumption of trans fats had dropped nearly 80%, in part driven by customer choice and by food companies moving away from partially hydrogenated oils.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently calculated that around 5,000 Americans a year die of heart disease linked to trans fat in the food supply, with another 15,000 getting heart disease.

    “The eventual elimination of artificial trans fat from the food supply will mean a healthier food supply, fewer heart attacks and heart disease deaths, and a major victory for public health,” says Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “The final determination made today by the Food and Drug Administration gives companies more than enough time to eliminate the last of the partially hydrogenated oil that is still used in foods like microwave popcorn, biscuits, baked goods, frostings, and margarines.”

    A major move in away from the widespread use of trans fats was New York City’s decision in 2008 to ban on trans fats at restaurants. This forced the hands of several chains to stop using partially hydrogenated oils nationwide. Last year, Long John Silver’s — a rare holdout from the glory days of trans fats — announced that its entire menu was now free of the stuff.

    “Like most public health measures, at first the phasing out of artificial trans fats was controversial,” said former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose administration pushed for the trans fat ban. “But as soon as New Yorkers understood that taking trans fats out of a dish didn’t impact the way their favorite foods tasted, and restaurant owners understood that the ban didn’t hurt business, the measure was widely accepted. In fact, the trans fat ban became a point of pride for many restaurants. When the FDA finishes the work that we started in New York City, tens of thousands of lives will be saved each year by this sensible public health measure.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uPrivacy Advocates Abandon Facial Recognition Policy Talks In Protestr


4 4 4 9
  • (Steve)

    (Steve)


    Facial recognition still kind of sounds like science fiction, but is a tech reality. It is, however, still a fairly new and unregulated reality — nobody quite knows how to handle it. So the Commerce Department brought together privacy advocates and industry representatives to hammer out a new code of conduct… and it is not going well. In fact, several of the advocates claim, the process is so broken that it can’t be fixed, and they are walking out.

    Advocates from the Center for Democracy & Technology, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Digital Democracy, the ACLU, the EFF, Common Sense Media, Consumer Action, and Consumer Watchdog all signed onto an open letter (PDF) explaining their reasons for abandoning the NTIA (a division of the Commerce Department) meetings.

    “We believe that people have a fundamental right to privacy,” the advocates explain. “People have the right to control who gets their sensitive information, and how that information is shared. … At this point, we do not believe that the NTIA process is likely to yield a set of privacy rules that offers adequate protections for the use of facial recognition technology.”

    “We have participated in this process in good faith for 16 months,” the advocates write, but industry is refusing to meet in the middle or in fact make any concessions at all. “In recent NTIA meetings,” the letter says, “industry stakeholders were unable to agree on any concrete scenario where companies should employ facial recognition only with a consumer’s permission. … The position that companies never need to ask permission to use biometric identification is at odds with consumer expectations, current industry practices, as well as existing state law.”

    The advocates do not mean to give up on seeking better standards for the use of facial recognition tech, but are withdrawing from the current process to “signal the need to reevaluate the effectiveness of multistakeholder processes.”

    Advocates are concerned because facial recognition is not the wave of the future, but of the present. The tech is already seeing use in all kinds of platforms, from the harmlessly gimmicky to the creepily invasive.

    For example, users of social media are by now familiar with Facebook’s tagging suggestions for photos. Google currently allows for the same and has more apps relying on face analysis on tap for the future. The NSA has used facial recognition technology in its widely controversial intelligence-gathering.

    In individual statements, some of the signatory advocates spoke much more strongly about how the process had derailed.

    “This should be a wake-up call to Americans: Industry lobbyists are choking off Washington’s ability to protect consumer privacy,” said a statement from Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law.

    Privacy Advocates Walk Out in Protest Over U.S. Facial-Recognition Code of Conduct [The Intercept]



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uUPS Making It More Expensive For Retailers To Ship Your Large Purchasesr


4 4 4 9
  • When online retailers like Amazon began making a big splash with free or discounted shipping, a lot of what customers bought were books, DVDs, video games — items that didn’t take up much room. But now people are buying TVs, refrigerators, grills, furniture, and other large items online, and UPS is apparently tired of giving retailers a discount on these shipments.

    When you or I ship an oversize package with UPS, it can trigger an automatic surcharge of $57.50, plus the shipper may apply “dimensional weight” to the shipment, meaning it charges not on the actual mass of the parcel but on a larger number based on how much room the package takes up during shipment.

    But in order to play nice with retailers who also use UPS for their smaller shipments, the company has long given discounts or waivers to some online stores so that they didn’t have to pay these hefty surcharges on the large items.

    Now the Wall Street Journal reports that UPS has recently begun telling some retailers that it wants to do away with these discounts on oversized parcels for at at least the upcoming holiday season — if not permanently.

    In terms of size, a 50-lb oversize package currently costs a retail shipper around $29, according to the Journal. Some stores are willing to eat that charge if it means selling something worth hundreds of dollars. But if UPS does away with discounts and waivers on oversize packages for retail shippers, this same shipment will trigger and additional $57.50 large package surcharge and because of dimensional weight, it will now be charged as a 90-lb parcel.

    Not many retailers are going to suck up all of that additional cost, meaning shoppers will likely either have to pay more for shipping or pay a higher retail price for these large goods.

    This news comes as Walmart prepares to roll out its ShippingPass program for Walmart.com, which will offer free three-day shipping on a variety of items — with no minimum order required.

    Meanwhile, Amazon is countering this news by offering free shipping on some smaller items to all customers, not just Amazon Prime subscribers.

    The Journal notes that UPS has to deal with each retailer separately and may have to renegotiate contracts. It’s possible that these two mega-stores may still get some sort of reprieve given the sheer volume of shipping they do through UPS and the value that business might have to a competitor.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uAbusive Lending Practices Can Lead To Negative Long-Term Consequences For Borrowers, Communitiesr


4 4 4 9
  • Every year, more than 12 million Americans spend $17 billion on payday loans, despite the fact research has shown these costly lines of credit often leave borrowers worse off. Yet abusive lending practices are not relegated to borrowers in need of a couple hundred dollars to stay afloat until their next paycheck; there are mortgages, car loans, and other traditional lines of credit that can leave the borrower in a bind. Even if you never find yourself on the wrong end of a predatory loan, these products can still be a drain on your entire community.

    This is according to a new report from the Center for Responsible Lending that explores the universal impact and cumulative costs of predatory lending practices on individuals, households and communities.

    The Cumulative Costs of Predatory Practices [PDF] is the final chapter of CRL’s State of Lending series that looks at all types of credit products including mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, student loans, car-title loans, overdrafts, bank payday loans, payday loans, debt settlement, and debt collection to explain how unfair lending practices can jeopardize the economic stability of families and households.

    Screen Shot 2015-06-15 at 10.04.22 PM

    IT’S NEVER JUST ONE THING

    It’s easy to look at an individual borrower and ask “Did this person take out X type of loan?” But the reality is that most people, even those who turn to the most notorious last-option lenders, are tied to multiple lines of credit.

    For example, the report found that 55% of car-title loan borrowers also have taken out a payday loan; 63% of payday loan users also have a credit card and 81% of consumers with a student loan also have a mortgage.

    “These patterns emphasize the interconnections between consumer credit markets,” Sarah Wolff, CRL senior researcher and author of the report, said in a statement. “Consumers are not simply mortgage holders, credit card users, or payday loan borrowers – they are likely to participate in more than one market, often at the same time.”

    Abusive lending practices, some of which are widespread, therefore have the potential to affect nearly every American.

    This chart shows the overlap of high-risk products like payday and auto-title loans with more traditional financing like mortgages and student loans.

    The report found that individuals who utilize a number of loan products concurrently are more likely to face financial risk. Someone having trouble making student loan payments may turn to a high-interest credit card to spread out the cost of their purchases, or someone behind on the mortgage might take out an auto-title loan to keep from losing their house.

    “If a borrower has one abusive loan, they may be more likely to struggle with their other debts,” the report states. “This can lead to stressed household finances, more subprime borrowing, and even default.”

    REACHING ALL FACETS OF LIFE

    Those stresses then have a way of trickling into other aspects of a consumer’s life, and even their community.

    According to the report, if a consumer defaults on a loan – a frequent consequence of predatory loan borrowing – they have an increased likelihood of declaring bankruptcy, which in turn can lead to foreclosure or repossession of assets such as a vehicle.

    CRL acknowledges that even those borrowers with loans that were properly underwritten can still fall on hard times and have difficulty repaying their debt, but when those traditional products include lending abuses the negative results for consumers are magnified.

    The CRL report uses mortgage lending as an example to show how costly some abuses can be for both the borrower and their community. [Click to Enlarge]

    The CRL report uses mortgage lending as an example to show how costly some abuses can be for both the borrower and their community. [Click to Enlarge]

    The report uses mortgage lending abuses – a lack of responsible underwriting, prepayment penalties and negative amortization – as an example of how these issues have introduced trillions of dollars of debt in the U.S. by way of foreclosures.

    As a result of nearby foreclosures, CRL reports that the value of neighboring homes fell by an average of $23,150 each, which then cost families more than $2.2 trillion nationwide.

    In a figure modeling a hypothetical borrower who underwent a foreclosure, the credit score damage alone leads to an extra $3,760 paid on a typical auto loan and almost $55,000 more paid on the typical mortgage.

    Additionally, the report found that negative outcomes such as default and bankruptcy pose both immediate and long-term costs. For example, the average bankruptcy costs $3,000 in legal fees, while a bankruptcy on a credit report increases the cost of future borrowing.

    The report also illustrates that one-in-seven job-seekers with blemished credit reports have been passed over for employment after a credit check.

    “For borrowers victimized by predatory practices, the costs are high, compounding, and long-lasting” Wolff said. “And this is especially troubling when considering that predatory lending disproportionately impacts lower-income families – contributing significantly to the widening of this country’s wealth gap.”

    SOME HURT MORE THAN OTHERS

    Like previous reports, The Cumulative Costs of Predatory Practices found that across many financial products, low-income borrowers and borrowers of color are disproportionately affected by harmful loan terms and practices.

    Families with annual incomes below $25,000 and $35,000 are much more likely to receive an abusive loan product.

    In most cases, borrowers of color are two to three times more likely to receive an abusive loan compared with a white counterpart.

    “The discriminatory effects of abusive lending clearly contribute to the widening wealth gap between families of color and white families,” the report states.

    Lower-income borrowers experience specific abusive lending practices (such as yo-yo scams in auto lending) at greater rates.

    Lower-income borrowers experience specific abusive lending practices (such as yo-yo scams in auto lending) at greater rates.

    Other specific groups – like the elderly and servicemembers – also have been shown to be disproportionately affected, because tight budgets make them less capable of absorbing the added costs of predatory loans.

    In addition to the socioeconomic implications of lending abuse, CRL found that these harmful practices are often geographically concentrated.

    Prior to the implementation of North Carolina’s payday loan rate limitation, researchers found that African-American neighborhoods had three times as many payday stores per capita compared with white neighborhoods, all else being equal.

    Additionally, CRL examined payday lending storefront locations in California and found that these stores were 2.4 times more concentrated in African-American and Latino communities.

    “What’s clear is that the impact of financial products on American consumers is much more nuanced – and much more serious – than we ever imagined,” Mike Calhoun, CRL president said in a statement.

    WHAT CAN BE DONE?

    While consumers’ need to borrow likely won’t change, CRL says that the way in which these products are regulated can put an end to the abusive practices that often accompany some financial products.

    “With the costs so high for borrowers, communities, and the economy, it is essential that policymakers make and enforce strong regulations to eliminate abusive financial practices and promote responsible lending,” the report states.

    Recent regulations such as the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 have allowed consumers to continue to gain access to credit while limiting the types of fees issuers could assess.

    In all, CRL estimates that the rules have eliminated an estimated $4 billion in abusive fees – translating to an overall savings of $12.6 billion annually.

    Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act put in place important consumer protections for mortgage lending and created CFPB to ensure fairness for consumers in the financial marketplace.

    “Consumers and policymakers alike seek to harness the positive potential of lending,” the report states. “Lenders, ultimately concerned most with their bottom line, may be able to succeed both in circumstances where borrowers succeed and when borrowers fail depending on their business model, as we’ve seen throughout the State of Lending in America series.”

    While the CARD Act and Dodd-Frank have improved the lending environment for consumers, CRL’s latest report shows that more can be done to promote transparency, fairness, accountability and access of consumer financial products.

    “As we have identified throughout the State of Lending series, more work needs to be done,” the report states. “Consumer credit has the power to change household budgets and balance sheets as well as to affect the health of communities and the national economy.

    “Regulations that protect consumers at this critical juncture are and will continue to be important for borrowers, communities, and our country.”



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist