الخميس، 31 مارس 2016
الأربعاء، 30 مارس 2016
FBI Now Helping Other Law Enforcement Agencies Bypass Apple’s iPhone Security Measures
One of Apple’s biggest concerns about being compelled to assist the FBI in bypassing the security measures on the iPhone was that it would be just the first of many requests to get around the device’s encryption, thus increasing the odds of this work-around getting into the hands of hackers. Now comes news that the FBI — which was able to crack the iPhone lockdown without Apple’s assistance — is offering to unlock Apple devices for other law enforcement agencies.
The AP reports that the FBI has agreed to assist prosecutors in Arkansas by unlocking Apple devices belonging to a pair of teenagers charged with murder.
One of the teens was slated to go to trial next week, but after news broke earlier this week that the FBI had been able to bypass the iPhone encryption, the judge in the case agreed to delay proceedings until June so that prosecutors could seek assistance from the FBI in unlocking an iPhone and an iPad they believe contain evidence of the suspects’ plans for the July 2015 murder of a 66-year-old couple in Conway, AR.
The Prosecuting Attorney for Faulkner County now tells the AP that the federal law enforcement agency has agreed to use its recently devised technique to bypass the security on the suspects’ devices.
Recently released data from the American Civil Liberties Union shows the extent to which the FBI and other federal agencies have sought court orders to compel Apple and Google to assist in unlocking iPhones and Android smartphones.
Many of the more than 63 instances cited in the ACLU report involve phones that were seized before the two companies upgraded their operating systems in late 2014. Those upgrades now mean that neither Apple nor Google have easy backdoor access to users’ devices. It also means that complying with court orders to assist the FBI would require Apple or Google to come up with a way to weaken the privacy measures they put in place.
Google has said that is has yet to receive a court order compelling the company to bypass these upgraded security measures, but that it would challenge any such order if it received one.
by Chris Morran via Consumerist
Chipotle Trademarks Name ‘Better Burger,’ Thinking About Fast-Casual Burger Chain
Would you eat a burger from Chipotle? No, not at Chipotle, but a fast-casual burger restsaurant that uses the same food-sourcing and cooking methods, and has a similar vibe and a GMO-free menu? The company, which also runs pizza and pan-Asian noodle restaurants modeled on its main brand, trademarked the phrase “Better Burger,” which sounds like a nice name for a burger place.
The Chipotle brand name might be a bit tainted right now, which might make the idea of expanding their business under a familiar model but a new brand name an appealing idea. The company’s other brands, ShopHouse Southeast Asian Kitchen and Pizzeria Locale, are relatively small now, with fewer than ten outlets of each open now.
In an e-mail to Bloomberg, which noticed the original trademark application, a Chipotle spokesperson said that the company is “exploring” the burger idea, describing it as a “growth seed” alongside the other two chains. Their business model could extend to more than pizzas and ramen, he points out: company executives and representatives “have noted before that the Chipotle model could be applied to a wide variety of foods,” he e-mailed.
In a strange parallel, McDonald’s, which at one point owned 90% of Chipotle, recently trademarked what could be a new slogan, “The simpler the better,” which suggests that it may continue its strange marketing of itself as a restaurant serving artisanal, almost-homemade food.
Chipotle Considers Opening Chain Under ‘Better Burger’ Name [Bloomberg]
by Laura Northrup via Consumerist
Should Cable, Internet Companies Be Required To Let You Cancel Service Online?
Just about any pay-TV or Internet service provider (often one in the same) lets new customers sign up online. You can do the whole process — check your address for availability (even if the company’s database is dreadfully wrong), pick a service tier, schedule an installation appointment, and even have your credit history checked — all without talking to a single human being. But if you need to cancel that same service, you likely have to spend quite a long time talking to someone on the phone, explaining that you simply don’t want to give their company any more money.
A recently introduced piece of legislation in California, AB 2867, is hoping to compel cable companies and ISPs to offer the option of one-click cancelation on their websites.
The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Mike Gatto from Los Angeles, argues that “if you are able to sign up for a service online, you should also be able to cancel it the same way.”
And that’s exactly what the bill’s language currently states:
“If a cable or Internet service provider enables an individual to subscribe to its services through an Internet Web site, it shall also enable all of its customers to cancel their subscriptions through the Internet Web site.”
The bill has the support of Ryan Block, who famously recorded a needy Comcast retention employee demanding that Ryan explain his reason for canceling service. A call that Comcast admitted was “embarrassing” and “painful,” even though the employee was doing “what we trained him to do.”
“Two years ago my wife and I called to cancel our service, and as is usually the case, that call was pretty unpleasant,” said Block in a statement about the California bill, which he believes “would finally allow most customers to be able to cancel their service online, without having to talk to someone whose job is specifically to prevent you from canceling.”
While Los Angeles was spared having to go through a merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable and the customer service nightmare that would have resulted from that marriage, TWC — the predominant provider in the area — is nearing a merger with Charter, meaning there will inevitably be hiccups as the two companies consolidate staffs, hardware, and customers.
This particular bill, if passed, would only require this change in California, but as we’ve seen in other cases — most recently the Vermont GMO-labeling rules — it’s sometimes easier for national companies to just make a blanket countrywide policy change instead of customizing a product for just one state.
by Chris Morran via Consumerist
Unregulated Preparers, Lack Of Disclosures & Costly Financial Products Put Your Tax Refund At Risk
Each year during tax time millions of consumers put their financial future in the hands of strangers, trusting that these tax preparers — who are largely unregulated — know the rules, will get them the best possible result (hopefully a refund), and won’t sell them on a product that costs more than it’s worth. But in the world of complicated tax codes and credits, consumers continue to face a long list of risks, including untrained preparers, undisclosed fees, and dangerous refund anticipation products.
These are just a few of the issues — and financial dangers — that the National Consumer Law Center and Consumer Federation of America are warning consumers about in their annual Tax Time Report [PDF].
“There’s a minefield of dangers for the tens of millions of consumers who use paid tax preparers to fill out their most important financial document of the year,” Chi Chi Wu, staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, and author of the report, said in a statement. “The hazards range from losing a chunk of their refund for unnecessary financial products, to errors or even fraud committed by unregulated preparers.”
Unprepared Tax Preparers
NCLC, CFA, and a host of other consumer groups and government agencies have previously highlighted the dangers of using untrained and unregulated tax preparers, but it’s worth noting again that there are just four states that actually have laws in place that require paid tax preparers to meet minimum education, competency, or training standards.
In fact, a 2013 study by the NCLC found that 47 states have stricter regulations for barbers than they did for paid tax preparers.
These ill-prepared preparers can expose consumers to potential error and even fraud. These risks were highlighted in a “mystery shopper” report from NCLC last year that found inaccuracies in 27 out of the 29 tax returns prepared by paid tax preparers.
While taxpayers may not be aware of the lack of regulation or training for paid preparers, they certainly expect these professionals to be held to certain standards.
A recent poll conducted by CFA as part of the new Tax Time report found that 80% of the public supports requiring paid tax preparers to pass a test administered by the government that would ensure that paid preparers have the knowledge and training to complete taxpayer returns correctly, while 83% of respondents support licensing requirements for preparers.
Another 56% believe that paid preparers should have special training but don’t need a degree and 31% of the public believes that paid tax preparers should have a college degree in accounting.
Even large chains of tax prep offices are not immune from ill-trained and unscrupulous preparers. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Justice sued to shut down a South Carolina franchisee of the huge Liberty Tax Service company for filing fraudulent returns. Among other accusations in the lawsuit, preparers allegedly gave customers fictional jobs based on their hobbies and told them to claim children that don’t exist.
While errors perpetrated by ill-prepared tax preparers can certainly wreak havoc on the refund a consumer receives, it isn’t the only danger lurking inside the walls of the local tax preparation office.
Refund Anticipation Products
Years after high cost Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) were all but removed from tax preparation offices, NCLC and CFA say a new generation of these unnecessary and costly financial products are being pushed by tax preparers.
When banks exited the RAL market in 2012, they left a hole for non-bank entities to fill, namely payday loan companies.
According to the new report, non-bank and “no-fee” RALs have been cropping up with increased frequency around the country.
“This year, some lenders are offering a new version of RALs that purportedly does not impose a charge directly on the consumer,” the report found. “However, some of these “no fee” RALs do appear to impose a cost in terms of a higher RAC fee. Also, there is concern that some preparers may pass the cost of the loans onto the taxpayer through increased tax preparation or junk fees.”
Tax preparation offices across the country are also now offering Refund Anticipation Checks (RACs). Much like RALs, RACs are a financial product used to deliver tax refunds and to pay for tax preparation fees by deducting them from the refund.
Under a RAC, a bank will open a temporary account into which the IRS direct deposits the refund monies. After the refund is deposited, the bank issues the consumer a check or prepaid card and closes the temporary account.
NCLC and CFA found that RACs, of which 21.6 million were issued in 2014, do not deliver refunds any faster than the IRS, despite charging consumers fees between $25 to $60.
Difficult To Compare Fees
As with past reports, the NCLC and CFA found that it was increasingly difficult to obtain tax preparation fee information before signing on the dotted line.
Tax preparation is one of the few services that do not provide meaningful price information to consumers, the report found.
And when fees can be as high as $400 to $500, it’s important for consumers to know how much they’ll shell out ahead of time. Yet, ask a paid preparer for an estimate on what it will cost you and they may flat-out refuse to give you a figure. They may also give you a vague estimate that they aren’t locked into and which could be very different from the actual costs.
“The lack of transparency and disclosure in tax preparation fees is appalling,” Wu said in a statement. “Without adequate price information, it’s a complete failure of the competitive market.”
According to the CFA’s poll, 89% of respondents support requiring paid preparers to supply an upfront list of fees.
“It is not surprising that the public overwhelmingly supports requiring upfront pricing from paid preparers –households need every penny of their refunds and should be able to comparison shop paid preparers for the best value just like they can for other services,” CFA senior policy advocate Michael Best, said in a statement.
by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist
Waze Wants To Tell You When You’re Over The Speed Limit
One feature of the Google-owned navigation app Waze that I hear is very useful is its sometimes-controversial crowdsourced police alerts, which warn users when there’s a speed trap ahead. Now the app is adding a feature which your GPS from the last decade may have had: it will warn you when you’re over the speed limit.
The feature has rolled out in 20 countries, which do not include the United States or Waze’s home country of Israel. They promise that support in the rest of the world is coming “soon.”
In some large cities, the app has compiled data about intersections that it considers especially dangerous, and will warn users to be especially cautious when approaching them, according to PC Magazine.
Here’s what you should remember about those speed limits, though: like must of the rest of road data within Waze, the information is crowdsourced, coming from the app’s community of users and super-users, its map editors. That means that the information is updated more often than commercial GPS apps might be, but trust it as far as you ever trust crowdsourced data.
For our international readers and people with travel planned, the countries where the feature is turned on are Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, El Salvador, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, New Zealand, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad, Tobago, and Uruguay.
Avoid Tickets and Stay Informed with New Waze Speed Limits Feature [Waze]
by Laura Northrup via Consumerist
Real Life Hamburglar Stole 33 Cases Of Burger King Whoppers From Back Of Delivery Truck
Contrary to what you may have believed your entire life, it turns out that the Hamburglar is not a character limited solely to pilfering beef patties from McDonald’s. How else might one explain how 33 cases of Burger King Whoppers went missing from the back of a truck recently?
Warren, MI police are investigating the crime, which happened while the driver of a semi-truck that was carrying the burgers ended up taking a nap on the job, the Detroit Free Press reports.
“It’s a whopper of a theft,” the city’s mayor, Jim Fouts, told the newspaper.
Here’s how the mystery of the disappearing Whoppers went down: on Thursday night, the driver tasked with transporting the Burger King products attempted to deliver several cases of burgers to the distribution center, but for some reason, he ended up having to wait several hours to complete the delivery.
He fell asleep in the truck and woke up at 2 a.m. to find that his truck’s shipping seal was busted and a few boxes of Whoppers were missing. So locked the truck with a padlock and went back to sleep, officials said. But when he woke up again at 8:30 a.m., at least one thief had struck his cargo, stealing 33 cases of burgers this time.
Police are now on the case of the hamburglars, though they need help with leads and are asking the public to pitch in — after all, “They probably consumed the evidence,” Fouts noted.
‘Hamburglar’ in Warren stole 33 cases of Whoppers [Detroit Free Press]
by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist