uBanks Ditching Online Security Images Some Experts Call “Worse Than Useless”r

4 4 4 9

• 
  When you log into your bank account online, you might see an image of a birdhouse, or a teapot, or some other object you selected when you signed up. Those pictures are supposed to help keep a customer’s account safe, by assuring them that the web page they’re viewing is, in fact, the bank’s website and not a scammy fake. But as cybercriminals are catching on, banks are choosing to ditch the images in favor of other security measures.

  Fraudsters have been learning new tricks to get around security images, like scraping information from a screen and later replicating the photo on a malicious website, reports MarketWatch, rendering the images ineffective.

  To that end, a study from Carnegie Mellon University found that though security images are designed to protect users from phishing attacks — entering their credentials on spoofed sites designed to trick users into thinking they’re legitimate — 75% of the 482 participants entered their passwords on a website lacking a security image.

  “I would call [security images] worse than useless,” Avivah Litan, vice president of information security and privacy at the Stamford, Conn.-based research company Gartner Inc. told MarketWatch “That bad guy is just sitting on your machine waiting for you to log in and look at the image, and then they’re in.”

  Bank of America got rid of what it calls SiteKeys this summer, noting that they are “no longer as relevant given changes in the landscape,” according to a bank spokesman. BofA switched to a two-factor authentication system that sends customers a one-time passcode by email or text that has to be entered along their username and password.

  Barclaycard is doing away with security images as well, pledging that signing in will soon become “quicker and easier without sacrificing account security.” The bank will also use the two-factor authentication method and offer to email, text or call customers with a passcode when they log in from a new device.

  There are those holding fast to the security images, however, including U.S. Bank, which says it uses them along with other security features.

  “Many of our customers appreciate the added layer of protection that the security images provide,” a spokeswoman said.

  Banks find online ‘security images’ offer little protection [MarketWatch]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uAmerican Airlines Offering Some Travelers Free Flights To China After Glitchr

4 4 4 9

• 

  For five hours in mid-March world travelers were able to book American Airlines flights from select U.S. cities to China for bargain prices because of a glitch. While the carrier honored tickets that had been paid for in full, it canceled hundreds of trips that were placed on a 24-hour price hold. Now, as part of an agreement with the Department of Transportation, those passengers are eligible for a free – or significantly discounted – trip to China. 

  The agreement [PDF] puts an end to a months-long investigation into whether the airline violated the 24-hour reservation hold rule and engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by not honoring erroneously discounted ticket prices that had yet to be paid for.

  During the technical error, which occurred between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. (EST) on March 17, American’s website offered business class tickets to Shanghai or Beijing, China for a base fare of $0 to $20.

  The full fare for the mistakenly priced tickets, including taxes, fees, and carrier-imposed fees, ranged from $400 to $800 per ticket. This price represented a severely discounted trip when compared to the average full-fare of a business class ticket for the cities which typically ranges from $4,500 to $5,000.

  In all, 1,194 reservations for 1,634 passengers were either put on hold for 24 hours or booked.

  The crux of the issue settled in this week’s agreement involves the 605 reservations for approximately 830 passengers who placed the sale price tickets on a 24-hour hold.

  DOT guidelines [PDF] on the 24-hour reservation requirement, which has been in effect since 2012, states that as long as a customer books a non-refundable ticket at least seven days ahead of the scheduled departure, an airline is required to offer one of two options: allow that customer to change or cancel the trip within 24 hours without penalty, or hold that reservation at the current price for 24 hours without payment.

  American Airlines subscribes to the latter option. The problem with the price glitch is that after the five-hour issue was found, the carrier canceled the reservations placed on hold before the 24-hour time limit — a violation of DOT guidelines.

  According to the consent order, the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings received over 100 complaints from consumers alleging that American improperly canceled tickets prior to the hold expiration.

  American defended its action, noting that it believed that a rash of social media posts about the glitch resulted in many customers placing flights on the 24-hour hold in “bad faith, and not on the honest belief that a good deal was available.”

  Under the deal, which could come at a $1 million cost for the carrier, American agreed to provide free economy class tickets or a $1,500 discount on a business class ticket for these passengers.

  While a free or heavily discounted flight to China might seem like a good compromise for the airline, it comes with the condition that the trips will not accrue miles for the passenger’s frequent flyer account.

  Those who choose the $0 economy ticket offer will still have to pay taxes and fees totaling about $450 per ticket.

  Quartz reports that American doesn’t expect many travelers to take the airline up on the deal because of the restriction on reward points.

  This isn’t the first time American has agreed to honor cheap fares booked during glitches.

  In August, the carrier announced it would allow a majority of customers who booked discounted flights on international routes by changing the country of origin to Brazil to continue with their travel plans.

  Customers who’d set their country of residence to Brazil had been able to score cheap tickets when the site swapped the current exchange rate: R$1.00 is about $0.29 U.S., so if you switch those around, you get very cheap plane tickets, which is what appears to have happened.

  Still, after reviewing the bookings, American told Consumerist that “a small number have been canceled based on how the traveler portrayed their country of residence.”

  [via Quartz]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uDairy Queen Wants To Expand Its Business In The Off-Seasonr

4 4 4 9

• 
  Some foods have a season, and in much of this country, ice cream is one of those foods. That’s why Dairy Queen, a chain that people associate with ice cream, is serving up more traditional fast food to keep busy in the off-season. They’ve expanded the menu to include more toasted sandwiches and warm desserts, and are advertising them on TV, but will that be enough to get people in the door when even established fast-food places are struggling?

  Dairy Queen has served burgers and fries for decades, but people don’t necessarily associate the chain with things that aren’t soft-serve ice cream. Bloomberg reports that the chain has improved sales each month this year even as the weather outside gets colder, but getting people in the door year-round will still require reminding people that they can get things other than frozen dairy products there.

  Menu changes sometimes come with grumbling from franchisees, though. Dairy Queen is a mostly franchised business, and it’s restaurant owners who have to pay up for equipment when there are menu changes. For the new “artisan” sandwiches, for example, each restaurant needed to pay about $6-8,000 for sandwich-toasting ovens.

  Warren Buffett’s Ice Cream Chain Looks to Fix Its Winter Problem [Bloomberg]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uThe Good, The Bleh & The Ugly Of State Payroll Cardsr

4 4 4 9

• Using payroll cards to pay employees is an increasingly popular replacement for traditional checks. In fact, 19 states now use these cards to pay state workers who don’t use direct deposit. And while some of these cards provide employees with easy and affordable access to their funds, most are merely adequate, and some exorbitant fees that can eat into users’ finances.

  This is according to a survey [PDF] of the different state payroll cards by the National Consumer Law Center.

  Unlike some employers who force employees to accept their pay on payroll cards, none of the states currently require that workers receive their pay in this method. In fact, the large majority of state employees are paid through direct deposit to their bank accounts. At the same time, employees who do use payroll cards are often among the lowest-paid workers who are most vulnerable to hefty fees.

  The good news is that all of the cards used by these states can — if used wisely — be used for free without incurring fees. They all allow cardholders to withdraw their entire wages at least once per pay period at a bank teller window, give the worker at least one free ATM withdrawal per deposit, charge no fees for purchases, and permits some free customer service calls.

  And a number of states have cards that go beyond these minimal standards for acceptable payroll cards. The NCLC report rated cards from three states — Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Oregon — the highest for using cards that charge virtually no fees for cash access, purchases, account information or penalties.
  Each of these cards also included at least one free out-of-network ATM withdrawal.

  Two additional states, Kentucky and Washington, also earned higher than average marks but fell short of the top rating because they charged fees ($1.25 and $1.75, respectively) for out-of-network ATM access.

  

  A majority of cards fall into a neutral category for offering payroll cards that provided the general benefits of easy access to funds, but with some fees that make them hard to recommend.

  Like the Alabama card from Wells Fargo. It offers one free in-network ATM withdrawal and one free call to a live customer service rep per deposit period, but after that you’re going to pay $1.50 and $2.00, respectively, for these. Or the Bank of America payroll cards used by New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Arizona. These cards are relatively fee-free, until the cardholder gets hit with a wage-garnishment order. In which case, BofA charges a $100 “legal process” fee to the employee for something that most of the other card issuers charge nothing.

  Which leads us to the bottom of the payroll card barrel — the NetSpend cards issued by Kansas and Missouri, and Virginia’s Comerica payroll card.

  For workers who opt in to the NetSpend overdraft protection plan, they face $25 fees for each overdraft, up to $125 a month, and $450 per year.

  “Overdraft fees are completely unacceptable on payroll cards,” reads the NCLC report, “and Kansas and Missouri should both be ashamed of paying employee wages on a card that promotes this predatory feature.”

  Even though both Kansas and Missouri cards are from the same issuer, the Kansas payroll card hits the user with more fees, like $1.50 charges for every in-network ATM withdrawal after the first one, and $1.00 for every balance inquiry at an ATM (in- or out-of-network).

  Virginia earned its thumbs-down from the NCLC for having a wide variety of fees that most cards don’t, like the $50 legal process fee, and $2.50 for bank teller visits (after two free).

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uResearchers Who Probably Hate Pizza: Living Alone Is Basically Terrible For Your Dietr

4 4 4 9

• 
  Living by yourself can be great — it means you have the option of never wearing real pants at home, guilt-free Netflix binges on sunny days and the ability to eat your meals in front of the open refrigerator by picking through whatever it is you happen to have in there. On that last note, researchers say living solo has a downside: it means you eat like crap.

  Without roommates or a partner around, people tend to have less healthy diets, according to an analysis of 41 studies published in the journal Nutrition Reviews by researchers at Queensland University of Technology.

  Researchers found that compared to people who cohabitate with others, singletons ate fewer fruits, vegetables, and fish and were less diverse int heir food choices overall.

  What is it about living solo that takes such a toll on the diet? One of the researchers notes that people who live alone might lack the motivation to shop for groceries or cook. As anyone who’s ever cooked a recipe for themselves knows, it can be rough to eat leftovers of the same meal for a week straight, which is the only alternative to losing money on all those groceries you bought to cook.

  That lack of desire to go out and forage and prepare food for yourself often leads those living the single life to make “simple or ready-made meals lacking key nutrients,” notes Dr. Katherine Hanna, one of the researchers notes in a press release.

  And without a roommate to shame you over eating an entire pizza for 14 meals in a row, there’s no impetus to go the healthy route.

  “The absence of support or encouragement to comply with healthy eating guidelines and difficulty in managing portion control were also factors influencing diet,” Dr. Hanna said.

  On the up side, this means there’s no one around to eat the last fudge bar in the freezer.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uMore Than 25M Travelers Expected To Hit The Skies This Thanksgivingr

4 4 4 9

• 

  If you’re planning to fly the friendly skies in order to visit family and friends this upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, you’ll have plenty of company in the form of nearly 25.3 million other travelers. 

  The 12-day period surrounding the 2015 Thanksgiving holiday season will be the busiest for the airline industry since the great recession, according to industry trade group Airlines 4 America.

  This year’s projection of 25.3 million passengers represents an increase of about 800,000 people from 2014’s estimated 24.5 million travelers.

  Breaking that figure down, Airlines 4 America estimates 1.4 to 2.7 million passengers will be wandering around airports each day.

  

  The busiest day for travel is expected to be Nov. 29, the Sunday after the big holiday, while Nov. 26 – Thanksgiving Day – will be the least crowded.

  So how are carriers preparing for the influx of customers? Airlines 4 America says they’re adding seats to the tune of a 3% increase in capacity.

  [via ABC News]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uLowe’s Agrees To $1.1M In Refunds Over Sketchy Flooring Installation Price Quotesr

4 4 4 9

• 
  When a company tells gives you a “per square foot” price for flooring, it would be nice to know if that means “per square foot of the floor(s) being covered” or “per square foot of the material ordered to do the job,” because those are often two very different numbers. For years, Lowe’s failed to make this distinction, which is why the home improvement retailer has agreed to refund up to $1.1 million to flooring customers in New York state.

  Since at least 2008, according to the office of NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Lowe’s advertised “per square foot” rates for installation of carpeting, ceramic tile, wood/laminate flooring but failed to adequately disclose that the pricing was based on the square footage of materials ordered, not the square footage of the project area.

  After a third-party installer measured the space, Lowe’s would provide the customer with an estimate for the job to be done, which included the cost of the material required, and the cost of installation. But again, what wasn’t properly disclosed, says Schneiderman, was the actual size of the room or the square footage of material ordered. Only if the customer specifically requested to get the measurements of their room was that information provided. Customers were also not told they could return unopened excess flooring materials for a refund.

  Following the NY AG’s investigation into Lowe’s installation sales, the retailer has agreed to settle with the state, paying cash refunds of up to 10% of installation fees to more than 16,000 New York consumers who purchased basic flooring installation services between Jan. 1, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2012. Affected Lowe’s customers will be notified by mail about how to obtain their refunds. Lowe’s will pay another $900,000 to the state to resolve these allegations.

  The retailer has also agreed to improved disclosure policies that should give customers more transparent and accurate information about how Lowe’s calculates its flooring installation charges. Any costs in excess of the project’s actual square footage is to be plainly disclosed in quotes provided to customers.

  “When consumers shop for home installation services, they deserve to be dealt with honestly and fairly – and not to be misled by deceptive sales practices that conceal the true cost of a service,” says Schneiderman, whose office is investigating installation pricing policies at other retailers. “We expect others who advertise for flooring installation to follow the model practices outlined in today’s agreement.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist