четверг, 6 августа 2015 г.

uFlaw In Android Device Sensor Leaves Users’ Fingerprints Vulnerable To Theftr


4 4 4 9
  • Using your fingerprint to open your phone may be convenient but it could also pose a security risk. That’s according to security researchers who discovered a way to breach Android devices to steal the unique prints.

    ZDNet reports that FireEye researchers identified what they referred to as the “fingerprint sensor spying attack” that allows hackers to acquire large batches of consumers’ fingerprints from Android-based phones, including those made by Samsung, HTC, and Huawei.

    The researchers, Tao Wei and Yulong Zhang, say that because the devices’ sensors aren’t locked down by manufacturers, it creates a vulnerability that allows hackers to obtain images of users’ fingerprints.

    “In this attack, victims’ fingerprint data directly fall into attacker’s hand. For the rest of the victim’s life, the attacker can keep using the fingerprint data to do other malicious things,” Zhang said.

    While the experiment was based mainly on mobile phones, the researchers warn that the same issues could be found in other devices such as laptops that use sensors.

    Zhang tells ZDNet that he couldn’t specify which devices were more vulnerable to the hack, but did not that the iPhone was “quite secure” because it encrypts fingerprint data.

    Researchers say they notified device makers of the issues and they have since provided patches to address the vulnerability.

    Still, Zhang and Wei recommend smartphone users always keep their software updated to the latest version and only install popular apps from the Google Play store with fingerprint sensors.

    This is the second time this summer that Android phones have been found to be vulnerable to hacks.

    Last month, security researchers discovered a flaw in nearly 950 million devices that let hackers send out a piece of code via text message to take over phones remotely.

    Hackers can remotely steal fingerprints from Android phones [ZDNet]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uDelta Hit With Another $2.7M In Sanctions In Years-Old Baggage-Fee Collusion Caser


4 4 4 9
  • A still-pending class-action lawsuit that dates back to the dawn of the baggage-fee era alleges that Delta and AirTran colluded to implement their original fees for passengers’ first checked bags. But Delta has apparently not been terribly forthcoming with all the documentation sought by plaintiffs and has already been sanctioned millions of dollars by the court, including a $2.7 million slap on the wrist handed down earlier this week.

    Of course, Delta made more than $860 million off baggage fees in 2014 alone, so this sanction represents less than half a percent of that amount.

    Anyway.

    Back in 2008, after American Airlines became the first major U.S. carrier to charge baggage fees for checked luggage, the CEO of Atlanta-based AirTran publicly stated that his airline could also do this but that it would “prefer to be a follower,” and play a wait-and-see game with fellow Atlanta airline Delta.

    Only a couple weeks later, Delta indeed decided to give baggage fees a try. True to its word, AirTran immediately followed suit. Both airlines began charging the same fees for passengers’ first checked bags on the same day, Dec. 5, 2008.

    With more airlines jumping on the baggage-fee bandwagon, antitrust investigators at the U.S. Justice Dept. launched a probe into the trend in 2009. Then came lawsuits filed by travelers accusing the airlines of collusion.

    Many of those complaints were consolidated into a single multi-district action in a federal court in Georgia. In Feb. 2010, the plaintiffs and defendants were all supposed to begin sharing info, but as the court notes, “this case has been plagued by a veritable deluge of discovery disputes… It is not hyperbolic to say that this lawsuit has turned into litigation about litigation: the time, energy, and resources spent on discovery abuses equals or exceeds those that have been dedicated to litigating the merits of the case.”

    The plaintiffs have repeatedly accused Delta of destroying or delaying evidence in the case. In 2011, it was learned that the airline had, among other problems, continued to overwrite old backups of e-mails on a server dedicated to preserving communications in the event of litigation. This resulted in the loss of some data from the months leading up to the launch of the baggage fees.

    The court didn’t sanction Delta, saying the plaintiffs had failed to show “that critical evidence existed and was destroyed” or that Delta had acted in bad faith. However, it did admonish Delta for not doing everything it could to preserve evidence.

    Delta also promised the court that it had “produced absolutely every document in its possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs had requested,” but almost immediately after the court denied those sanctions, the judge now says “it became clear that Delta’s rhetoric was far removed from reality.”

    See, while all this baggage-fee discovery was going on, the DOJ was also investigating Delta over a completely unrelated issue involving its plan to swap takeoff and landing slots in Atlanta with U.S. Airways. But when the DOJ was looking at all the documents turned over by Delta, it found items that were relevant to the baggage-fee lawsuits, but which the airline had failed to provide to the plaintiffs.

    A Special Master charged by the court with handling these messy discovery issues called these errors “colossal blunders” on the part of Delta.

    That same month, Delta just happened to find a box of previously undiscovered backup tapes that it had not noticed in, of all places, a room called the “evidence locker.”

    A review of these tapes turned up 60,000 pages of documents that should have been turned over to the plaintiffs. As a result, the court issued its first sanction against the airline, for nearly $1.3 million.

    More sanctions were to come after another batch of 29 backup tapes was discovered. Even though they were found in June 2011, not even Delta’s lawyers knew about them until Oct. 2012, and only after they had been turned over to the DOJ as part of an unrelated request.

    Delta paid a $3.49 million sanction this time, mostly to cover the cost of hiring an independent researcher to scan through and restore all of the newly turned-up tapes. Because the court still didn’t know at the time what, if anything, new this review would turn up, it left open the door for future sanctions.

    And so in late 2013, the plaintiffs filed a 2,300-page motion (answered by a 2,300-page response from Delta) seeking additional penalties against the airline.

    This led to a four-day hearing run by the Special Master in the case, after which an employee of Delta’s investigative response team turned over what she believed was additional evidence of Delta’s discovery misconduct… leading to more documents, leading to more hearings, etc.

    In Nov. 2014, the Special Master recommended a $1.86 million sanction against Delta, though he said the plaintiffs failed to show that crucial evidence had been destroyed or hidden, or that the airline was acting in bad faith.

    “Delta does not and could not claim that, despite its due care, it was unable to comply,” wrote the Special Master at the time, explaining his recommendation for sanction.

    The Delta investigations employee then turned up additional documents, then the plaintiffs objected to the $1.86 million figure, and so did Delta, but for different reasons, obviously.

    “Without question, it is Delta’s ineptitude and missteps that have caused the vast majority of the excessive time, expenses, and energy that the parties have expended in discovery for the last five years,” writes the judge in his order [PDF] granting latest sanction motion. “Delta’s discovery misconduct has rendered the Court’s attempts to manage this litigation and move it toward a resolution on the merits as futile and maddening as Sisyphus’s efforts to roll his boulder to the top of the hill.”

    And so, in the end the judge concluded that $2.7 million figure — higher than the Special Master’s recommendation but less than the plaintiffs sought — is adequate to hopefully put and end to this bumbling behavior.

    Additionally, the judge granted class-action status [PDF] to the case this week, though it’s almost certain the Delta will appeal, further delaying any conclusion to this lawsuit, which would now be entering first grade if it were a child.

    [via WSBTV]



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uStudy: Ordering Pizza Online Adds Up When It Comes To Calories And Cashr


4 4 4 9
  • (Furgus)

    (Furgus)

    The appeal of ordering food online is obvious — it’s easy, you don’t have to talk to anyone and it’s perhaps less likely that your order will get screwed up with the list of toppings, extras or instructions entered in with your own two hands. But summoning grub with the touch of a button, especially ordering pizza, really stacks up the calories and drains the wallet, a new study says.

    According to a paper in the upcoming edition of the journal Management Science, folks eat more calories and spend more money when they order food online. Because isn’t it easier to order 14 pizza toppings when you don’t have to admit when you’re doing out loud to a human being on the phone?

    Researchers at the business schools of the University of Toronto, Duke University and the National University of Singapore tell us what we already know: we act more freely on our food desires when there’s no social norms to get in the way like they do when we call someone on the phone to discuss the matter of food.

    Pizza is especially attractive online or with apps like Seamless and GrubHub — it’s like it’s saying, “Go on, honey. Get the extra cheese. And add bacon, pepperoni, sausage, ham and pineapple while you’re at it. I won’t judge you. I’m here for you. You want me. I want you.” You get it. That all adds up to calories and money.

    “When we think we’re free from social judgments, we’ll order what we really want,” Ryan McDevitt, an economics professor at Duke’s Fuqua Graduate School of Business told the Huffington Post. He came up with the idea for the study after talking to a childhood friend who owns a pizza chain in North Carolina.

    His pal said customers were coming up with crazy pies online, with at least a few over-the-top orders a day coming in over the internet. He let the researchers study his chain’s ordering data between 2007 and 2011, consisting of about 160,000 orders from 56,000 households.

    The researchers then compared orders made online and over the phone from the same households, and found that the internet orders came with 14% more special instructions — combining or dividing toppings — and had 3.5% more calories than phone orders.

    Though you might think apps and websites make it easier to tack on the toppings or get creative, researchers said in this case, the restaurant’s website was pretty simple and didn’t look much different from its printed menu. And as for using online ordering to ensure a correct order, that didn’t hold up here, either: McDevitt said customers were more likely to ask for double pepperoni online than on the phone, though there’s nothing particularly confusing about “double pepperoni” said on the phone.

    The difference is, no one can hear the shame in your voice when you’re ordering online. But let’s be clear, friends: There is no shame in loving pizza.

    Why You Should Probably Never Order A Pizza Online [Huffington Post]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uInvestors Decide Cord-Cutting Is Real And Worrisome, Cable Network Stocks Drop All Aroundr


4 4 4 9

  • Cord-cutting, in which (usually younger) pay-TV subscribers walk away from cable and embrace new ways of accessing media, has been a known phenomenon since at least 2011. But it’s been a slow-rolling snowball, even as services like Netflix soar into the stratosphere. This year, however, it seems that Wall Street traditionalists have finally caught on to the change, and they’re not happy.

    The Wall Street Journal reports (paywalled, sorry) that investors are following audiences’ leads, and trying to cut their ties with traditional cable programmers.

    A huge number of companies have reported their second-quarter earnings over the past 48 hours, and for the cable networks, the numbers aren’t good. The WSJ, looking at Wednesday’s trading, describes media stocks as “battered.” After announcing their quarterly results yesterday, Time Warner stocks dropped by 9% and Discovery Communications fell 15%. Fox and Viacom both dropped 7% or more on Wednesday — even though their earnings calls weren’t until Thursday morning.

    But, the WSJ points out, the real driver behind media uncertainty is Disney (which dropped over 9%). EPSN’s parent company, considered the absolute tentpole of cable, had to spend their investor call late Tuesday defending the high-cost sports behemoth as they admitted “some subscriber losses” due to cord-cutting and skinny bundles.

    Disney is suing Verizon over the latter’s exclusion of ESPN from some of those skinny FiOS bundles. But it also seems that maybe consumers just don’t care as much about ESPN as conventional wisdom has held, and for the big mouse that’s that’s a big problem.

    It’s not exactly that nobody’s watching programming anymore; everyone still is. But they’re getting it in new ways, and viewers are being pickier about where their pennies go in an ever-more fragmented media landscape.

    Content companies and distribution companies are going head-to-head against each other now, as more viewers get their fix online. Slim, over-the-top bundles of channels from incumbent providers like Dish and Comcast are competing not only against Netflix, Amazon, and even Sony but also directly against networks like CBS, Showtime, and HBO.

    That’s a huge challenge for content companies that don’t (yet) have their own streaming services. A business like Discovery or Viacom traditionally gets is revenue from two main streams: advertising, and affiliate fees. The former is pretty straightforward. The latter is the amount that distributors pay to content companies per customer that gets their network. In other words, if 15 million of Comcast’s 22 million customers get Network A in their bundles, and the agreed-upon rate for Network A is $0.15 per month per customer, then Comcast would pay Network A’s parent company about $27 million per year.

    Up until the last few years, both revenue streams have been lucrative, and affiliate fees have been stable and predictable even as ad markets fluctuated. But as consumers’ tastes change and new businesses emerge, those fees are suddenly in doubt. Network A and a cable company can negotiate a 10-year deal, but if there are 20% fewer subscribers to the cable company at the end of that deal than there were at the start, Network A is going to be in trouble.

    That’s basically what investors are concerned about, the WSJ explains. This June and July, Nielsen ratings show that the top 30 cable networks had 10% fewer prime-time viewers and 20% fewer viewers between 18 and 49 (a key advertising demographic). Yesterday, Dish’s CEO flat-out called the linear TV (cable/satellite) business “mature-to-declining”

    Viacom, among others, has complained that Nielsen ratings do not accurately capture how many people are watching their programming. If you watch tonight’s Daily Show finale online tomorrow at work, for example, Nielsen won’t capture that data.

    Investors, though, don’t seem to care about that logic. As of noon, Viacom stock is still down about 16% from where it started the day.

    Cord-Cutting Weighs on Pay TV [Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uThe Glorious ’80s Time Capsule House Is Having An Estate Saler


4 4 4 9
ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uLegislation Would Prohibit Employers From Looking At Credit Reports During The Hiring Processr


4 4 4 9
  • A poor credit report can have a devastating impact on a consumers’ life – preventing them from receiving needed lines of credit, losing out on renting or buying a home, or even being passed over for a job. But one of those issues could be a thing of the past with the reintroduction of legislation that would prohibit potential employers from using credit history during the job screening process.

    Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, and several co-sponsors, introduced the Equal Employment for All Act [PDF] that would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to ensure that even consumers with bad credit histories have a fair shot of obtaining employment.

    According to the bill, employers would be prohibited from disqualifying employees based on a poor credit rating, or information on a consumer’s creditworthiness, standing or capacity.

    In the past, employers have use credit reports as a way to get insight into an prospective employee’s character. However, research on the subject has shown that an individual’s credit rating has little correlation with their ability to be successful in the workplace.

    “A bad credit rating is far more often the result of unexpected medical costs, unemployment, economic downturns, or other bad breaks than it is a reflection on an individual’s character or abilities,” Warren said in a statement.

    Additionally, reports have shown that many issues showing up on consumers’ credit histories often include difficult to correct errors – debts that were never theirs or debts they’ve paid off but continue to appear in their histories.

    “It makes no sense to make it harder for people to get jobs because of a system of credit reporting that has no correlation with job performance and that can be riddled with inaccuracies,” Warren said.

    While the legislation could improve the hiring process for consumers struggling to make ends meet, it does provide an exemption for positions that require national security clearances.

    The Act, which is similar to a measure that was introduced and then stalled in the legislature back in 2013, has been endorsed by more than 40 organizations including the NAACP, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Fair Housing Alliance, and Public Citizen.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uStolen Stradivarius Violin Returns After 35 Yearsr


4 4 4 9
  • Not a Stradivarius. (Photo Phiend)

    Not a Stradivarius. (Photo Phiend)

    A rare Stradivarius violin that went missing 35 years ago has reappeared, after someone happened to open a box in the attic. Here’s where we get the urge to start searching grandma’s attic.

    A renowned violinist named Roman Totenberg stashed his violin — known as the Ames Stradivarius — in his office after a concert in 1980 while he chatted with fans and other folks. When he got back, it’d vanished. He’d purchased the rare violin in 1943 for $15,000 (about $200,000 today) and it was the only instrument he ever performed with — that is, until it was stolen. He passed away in 2012 at the age of 101, never to see his Stradivarius again.

    Now the violin has been recovered, after an appraiser who was asked to look at it called the police. Totenberg’s daughter Nina, who’s a legal affairs correspondent for NPR, said she got a call from the FBI one day saying they had the violin, and she couldn’t have been more surprised.

    “This loss for my father was, as he said when it happened, it was like losing an arm,” she told the Associated Press. “To have it come back, three years after he died, to us, it’s like having him come alive again.”

    At the time, Totenberg said he thought he knew who had swiped his violin, but police didn’t have enough evidence to pursue a suspect. The wife of a late violinist reportedly brought the violin to the appraiser, who called the police immediately upon recognizing the violin as the missing Ames Stradivarius. Totenberg’s daughter says the young, aspiring violinist had been seen hanging around her dad’s office at the time of the theft.

    “There was nothing to be done, and eventually he just moved on and bought another violin and lived the rest of his life,” she says of her dad. He had to rework his entire repertoire after the loss, she adds.

    Though the Stradivarius has some wear and tear, it was in pretty good condition, which Nina says means it likely wasn’t played much. She says prosecutors aren’t planning on charging anyone in connection to the theft, and her family will then sell it — to a musician.

    “I’m just glad that the violin, once it’s restored to its full potential again, will eventually be in the hands of another great artist,” she said, “and its gorgeous voice will be heard in concert halls around the country.”

    You can listen to Nina’s story in her own words over at NPR as well.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist