uGoogle’s Self-Driving Car Involved In Collision Resulting In Injuries For First Timer

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Mariordo/Wikipedia)

  Google’s self-driving prototypes have been tooling around on real roads for some time now, and like cars that are driven by people, they’ve had a few bumps and traffic incidents, but no one has gotten hurt. That’s all changed now, as the company reports one of its driverless vehicles has been involved in an accident that involved injuries for the first time.

  The collision happened near Google’s home in Mountain View, CA, where 20 of its self-driving prototypes have been cruising around recently. In this case, the company’s Lexus SUV bearing sensors and cameras was hit from the back, Chris Urmson, head of Google’s self-driving car program, wrote in a blog post on Thursday, and three Google employees riding inside to monitor the test car complained of minor whiplash as a result.

  They were checked out at a hospital and later cleared to go back to work after the July 1 collision, Google says, while the driver of the other car also complained of neck and back pain.

  Because these cars are just prototypes and can’t drive around without a human behind the wheel just yet, a Google employee is required to be behind the wheel. Then there’s usually someone in the front passenger seat to take notes and in this case, there was another Googler in the back seat along for the ride.

  According to an accident report that Google filed with the California Department of Motor Vehicles about the July 1 crash, the driverless SUV was going about 15 mph in self-driving mode behind two other cars, as they all approached an intersection with a green light. When the first car slowed to a stop so it wouldn’t block the intersection, the other car and Google’s vehicle also stopped.

  About a second later, a fourth vehicle hit Google’s car from the back at about 17 mph, with the driverless car’s on-board sensors showing the other car did not brake.

  Though police responded, they didn’t file an accident report. This is a good thing, says Google’s Urmson.

  “We’re seeing first-hand the true measure of how distraction is impacting driving,” he told USA Today. “None of our accidents rise to the level of police reports. So what we are experiencing is what the road is really like.”

  The company started issuing monthly reports about the collisions and accidents in June (including a list of all the accidents before then), noting that the company’s cars hadn’t been the cause of any of the previous collisions.

  Out of a total of 14 accidents in the last six years and 1.9 million miles of testing, the company says 11 of those involved Google cars getting rear-ended.

  Urmson adds in his post that the SUVs “are being hit surprisingly often” by distracted drivers, who could be looking at their phones.

  “The clear theme is human error and inattention,” Urmson wrote. “We’ll take all this as a signal that we’re starting to compare favorably with human drivers.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uConsumerist Friday Flickr Findsr

4 4 4 9

• Here are seven of the best photos that readers added to the Consumerist Flickr Pool in the last week, picked for usability in a Consumerist post or for just plain neatness.

  

  (Laurice Marier)

  

  (Will)

  

  (吉姆 Jim Hofman)

  

  (Xavier J. Peg ☠)

  

  (reverendlukewarm)

  

  (Helena de Riquer)

  

  (Tambako The Jaguar)

  Want to see your pictures on our site? Our Flickr pool is the place where Consumerist readers upload photos for possible use in future Consumerist posts. Just be a registered Flickr user, go here, and click “Join Group?” up on the top right. Choose your best photos, then click “send to group” on the individual images you want to add to the pool.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

u3 Obvious Signs This “Walt Disney-World.” Facebook Giveaway Is A Scamr

4 4 4 9

• Another day, another Facebook scam that has suckered in more than 25,000 people in just a matter of hours — in spite of the fact that nothing about this supposed giveaway indicates that it’s legitimate.

  Let’s again break down the most obvious signs that this scam is just harvesting “Likes” for some unscrupulous moron to try to flip for a profit before they get caught by Facebook.

  1. The Page’s Name
  Apparently none of the 26,000+ people who shared this scam noticed that the name of arguably the most famous theme park on the planet is inexplicably written as “Walt Disney-World.”

  Yes, aside from the random hyphen, that “.” is part of the name, an indicator that a scammer is trying to impersonate a popular “Verified” account of a big brand.

  It’s the same trick that “United Airlines.” tried to pull earlier this month.

  2. No History

  Accepting for a moment that maybe the head of Disney’s social media team has no idea how to write the park’s name, why does the Facebook page for one of the world’s biggest tourist destinations only have a single post and no history before earlier today?

  Because it’s a scam and you should apologize to all your friends for littering their timelines with it.

  3. Lack Of Fine Print

  The Walt Disney Company has a market cap of more than $200 billion, and owns everything from the theme parks to publishing interests to ABC, ESPN, and other TV/film/home entertainment brands.

  A company with that much to lose isn’t going to just give away prizes worth thousands of dollars with complete disregard to federal and state laws.

  This is not a company that plays fast and loose with fine print. If you’ve any doubt, I point you to the entire website that Disney has set up with Terms of Service for its various properties in multiple languages.

  Do you think a business that translates its online terms of service into both Canadian French and good ol’ French is going to hand out boxes of cash because you liked a photo?

  Please feel free to like and share this story; you won’t win anything, we promise.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uiTunes Ditches Free Music Downloads Againr

4 4 4 9

• You, iTunes user! What use do you have for free downloads when you have the glorious streaming library of Apple Music to enjoy? Earlier this year, iTunes appeared to discontinue their free music download of the week, a decade-old feature. We speculated that Apple was doing away with the feature because of their acquisition of Beats, which has a music streaming service. Now that Apple Music has arrived, the free music downloads are gone again.

  For now, of course, Apple Music is free for the first free months, but old-school iTunes users might miss their free tunes. Now all that’s available are TV episodes as free downloads, which you can see above. Reader Andrew points out that downloadable movie trailers are also gone from iTunes.

  This time, the freebies might be gone for good: streaming video sites like YouTube are a better way to watch movie trailers, and consumers are buying fewer full albums and more streaming subscription.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uCustomers Report Receiving $15 Best Buy Gift Cards For $15 After Pricing Errorr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Ryan)

  It turns out that our post yesterday about the pricing error at Best Buy wasn’t quite accurate. When the retailer’s site offered $200 gift cards for $15, lots of people hopped on this particular bandwagon and ordered them. However, it turns out that Best Buy didn’t cancel all of the gift cards they sold. Some shipped out…and arrived loaded with only $15. Well played, Best Buy.

  The biggest single order that we heard of trying to take advantage of this deal was a dozen cards, which would have been an impressive haul if it had worked. What’s different about this pricing error compared to other ones is that it’s not possible to, say, downgrade a computer or change a TV model while the item in transit.

  “What is highly interesting is that these cards just arrived with packing slips that clearly indicate the $200 SKU, orders that confirm the $200 card, but the value loaded onto the card is only $15,” tipster J. tells us. If that’s the case, it means Best Buy figured out what was going on after the packages containing the gift cards were shipped, but before the buyers received them.

  We’ve established in a lot of similar cases in the past that it’s unreasonable to expect a company, even a Big Bad Corporation, to lose more than a hundred dollars on a transaction if they catch the error before shipping your purchase. What if the product is changeable from afar and they catch the error in the interim, though? Best Buy’s terms and conditions for gift cards don’t address this issue.

  In any case, we can’t repeat enough times: legitimate pricing errors are not bait and switch. People who ordered these cards hoping for $185 in free money from Best Buy were not acting in good faith, and knew that their orders would be canceled once Best Buy noticed what happened. At what point does a gift card change hands, though? Is it like a movie or book that lives in the cloud, and you never really “own” that money?

  We contacted Best Buy to find out whether they did change the card values in mid-shipment, and will let you know what they say.

  PREVIOUSLY:
  Best Buy Sells $200 Gift Cards For $15, Cancels Orders
  Reminder: Legitimate Pricing Errors Are Not Bait And Switch

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uPayment Processor Pleads Guilty After Allowing Fake Payday Lenders To Raid Bank Accountsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Brian Turner)

  If a payment processor — the intermediary between a merchant and the banks — facilitates transactions that it knows aren’t on the up-and-up, it’s not just a no-no; it’s a federal offense. Just ask the California man who pleaded guilty to wire fraud for enabling the operators of fake payday loan sites to steal money from consumers’ bank accounts.

  According to charges [PDF] filed last month in a federal court in Pennsylvania, for four years, Neil Godfrey, owner and operator of a payment processor called Check Site Inc., used this business to help illegally move millions of dollars out of consumers’ bank accounts.

  Federal prosecutors say that Godfrey first identified banks that he believed would look the other way at certain behaviors that would have raised red flags at most institutions. He then used Check Site and these to process payments for fraudulent payday loan websites.

  One merchant client of Godfrey’s ran a site claiming to offer payday loans. Applying for these bogus loans required users to enter their very real bank account information.

  The fraudster would then use this ill-gotten info to create a demand draft — a check created by a third party using the account holder’s name and account info. Unlike ordinary checks, demand drafts are not signed by the account holder, but contain a statement claiming the account holder has authorized the check.

  Demand drafts also differ from credit card payments and electronic bank-to-bank transactions (ACH transactions) in that demand drafts are not monitored by any supervisory authority.

  So if a bank doesn’t have a system in place to identify when large numbers of demand drafts have been rejected, the fraud can continue undetected.

  In fact, Godfrey was so proud of his ability to pull this ruse off successfully that he bragged in an e-mail that this client would only be in business a day if they were trying to run this scam with monitored ACH transactions.

  He also advised clients who had operated previous fraudulent ventures on how to change their business names to avoid detection.

  Another Check Site merchant client also posed as payday lenders to harvest consumer bank account info. But rather than just creating demand drafts to help themselves to the money, they tricked applicants into being enrolled in weekly or monthly fee payments.

  Prosecutors say Godfrey knew this merchant never intended to offer payday loans, that consumers were being deceived into these recurring payments, and that there was no actual value to the fraudulent subscriptions. One service charged for e-mailing customers a monthly cocktail recipe.

  In an e-mail to that client, Godfrey warned that the cavalier attitude of these scammers could scuttle the fun for everyone, writing that “[W]e have too much opportunity to let this little larceny sink our boat.” At the same time, he belittled victims by telling the merchant that “the complainers are people who are the bottom of society and probably have been blaming other[s] for their woes forever.”

  Another e-mail gives a client advice on how to convince a bank that it’s a legitimate business and not just a front to drain bank accounts:

  “[T]he lesson we have learned is that we must trick the [bank] folk. It means you need to set up some type of website front. What we need to do is set up a legitimate website selling anything you can think of – that is what you get approved on. It is irrelevant if anything is ever sold there – just so it exists…. In the mean time we set up false credit card approval etcetera. It is this we use to run the transactions. Yes, there will be a lot of returns, but what we do is send through transactions over the next few weeks that don’t have high returns. They stop looking and then we can run the regular stuff…. [A]fter several months we junk that company and go to another company.”

  “The Justice Department will not sit idly by while companies and individuals take money from victims’ accounts without their consent,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “As this case demonstrates, the Department of Justice will continue to prosecute those involved in perpetrating or knowingly assisting fraud schemes.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

u15 Years Into Agreement To Provide St. Paul’s Elderly A Cable Discount, Comcast Reps Have Never Heard Of Itr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Consumerist)

  The Minnesota city of St. Paul sits, like its twin Minneapolis, squarely in Comcast territory, with nary a competitor in sight. But the franchise agreements that create local monopolies can also be used to residents’ benefit: as part of the contract that lets them be the exclusive cable company in town, Comcast offers low-income and elderly St. Paul residents a discount off their cable bills. Great, right? Well, it would be… if anyone in town could actually sign up for it.

  Comcast and St. Paul recently came to terms on a contract extending their franchise agreement for another 10 years, through 2025. As part of that agreement, the Twin Cities Pioneer Press reported, a discount offer Comcast must provide for certain customers would also be extended.

  The agreement (PDF) between the city and the business includes a discount program that mandates a 10% discount on cable TV service be available to any resident who is a senior citzen, disabled, or economically disadvantaged. The discount has been in place for 15 years already.

  And that was news to a huge number of Pioneer Press readers, who had never heard of the discount at all.

  As the Pioneer Press points out: in a city where 24% of the population lives in poverty and 9% of the population are senior citizens, you would expect to see, let’s say, roughly a quarter of the city getting discounted rates, even if those two populations overlapped entirely.

  Of course, they go on, not everyone subscribes to cable. That’s fair. But still, they estimate, the discount could be applied to as many as 72,000 residents in over 26,600 households. And although the 10-year extension to the franchise agreement is new, the discount has been part of that agreement for the last 15 years as well. So Comcast clearly must have doled out quite a lot of discounts over the past decade and a half, right?

  Well, no.

  When the Pioneer Press ran an article about the discount, they became inundated with responses from readers saying that not only were they not getting discounts from Comcast, but that when they called to have them applied — because it’s not automatic, subscribers do have to ask — Comcast reps were downright hostile.

  “You can’t get the discount from them. The last time I tried I was told I was trying to get a ‘free handout.’ They’re rude and they’re crude. Isn’t there something that can be done to get these people out of our city?” one resident told the paper.

  Another said: “I called Comcast today and the first agent I spoke with was unaware of this discount and tried to get an answer from one of their ‘specialist.’ They were also unaware of this discount, so I asked to speak with a supervisor who also did not know about the discount. After informing them that it was in the paper yesterday and giving them the info necessary to look it up, they asked if I had any further information.”

  Yet another: “I spent an hour on the phone with them, and they don’t know anything about it. They said it’s only good in California and Puerto Rico, or something to that effect.”

  Another: “The guy put me on hold for a while, and then he gave me another number, and then he said you have to send a letter to Beaverton, Ore., and you get $1.”

  Still another: “Discounts for seniors and the disabled? I think I fall under two of those categories as a disabled veteran. … I called the number and spoke to a customer service rep that actually is in Mexico. She had no knowledge of that at all.”

  And one more: “The guy said, ‘Well, the newspaper is not correct, take it up with them.'”

  The Pioneer Press took the consumers’ tales of woe — many more than we’ve quoted — to Comcast.

  A representative for Comcast told the Pioneer Press that the company apologized for the inconvenience, and promised that representatives would be retrained. “We have provided the senior citizen discount to qualified St. Paul customers for more than 15 years, and will continue to honor that commitment,” he said, adding, “We are communicating with all customer care representatives to make certain they are aware of the discount and the qualification process for St. Paul customers.”

  Comcast also declined to provide the Pioneer Press with the number of customers that have received the discount — even though as part of the franchise agreement, Comcast is required to provide both an annual estimate (in their first quarterly report of the year) of the number of eligible subscribers receiving the discount and also the amount of those discounts.

  

  Broadband competition (or specifically, its absence) in the Twin Cities.

  Like most other consumers, residents of St. Paul (and its sibling) can’t exactly pick up and go elsewhere.

  Competition is nonexistent, and so St. Paul residents are stuck with Comcast or bust. That means there’s not much incentive for the cable giant to go around trumpeting those discounts, because customers can hardly shop around or price-match elsewhere.

  The city, however, can push back. Tarek Tomes, St. Paul’s chief information officer, told the Pioneer press that “Comcast has been informed numerous times over the years to educate their customer reps about St. Paul’s senior discount,” and added, “The city is more than glad to assist any subscriber who has trouble receiving it.”

  Comcast gives St. Paul seniors runaround on cable discount [Twin Cities Pioneer Press]
  St. Paul’s seniors to Comcast: Where’s the beefy discount? [Twin Cities Pioneer Press]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Kate Cox via Consumerist