FDIC Suggests New Safeguards For Web Banking
"User names" and passwords should be supported in Internet banking transactions with new and better ways of identifying real customers from fraud artists trying to "highjack" bank accounts, according to an update on identity theft from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
"Identity theft, particularly account hijacking, continues to grow as a problem for the financial services industry and for consumers," said FDIC Chairman Don Powell. "Our review illustrates that ID theft is evolving in more complicated ways and that more can and should be done to make online banking more secure."
The new findings are in a supplement to an FDIC study issued in December about ways to fight "phishing" scams, in which criminals send fraudulent e-mails to trick consumers into providing confidential financial information that can lead to illegal access to bank accounts. The supplement reviews and responds to public comments that the FDIC received about the original study, identifies the most recent trends in identity theft, and discusses a variety of new technologies that could be used to make Internet banking more secure.
In the latest findings, the FDIC concluded that the risk assessment financial institutions are required to perform regarding information security also should address customer authentication. The supplement also said that if an institution offers Internet banking, it has an obligation to properly secure that delivery channel. This extra level of security for online accounts, often referred to as "multifactor authentication," would be used in addition to the traditional passwords. These new security features may include "tokens" issued to customers that generate new passwords every 60 seconds, software that can identify the computer that a customer uses to access online accounts, or contacting a customer by phone to make sure that he or she is the one attempting to access the account.
The FDIC and other federal banking agencies are expected to issue guidance this fall to insured financial institutions about improving the security of customer authentication methods. The latest FDIC findings are expected to be considered in the development of that guidance.
"The FDIC does not intend to propose one solution for all, but the evidence…indicates that more can and should be done to protect the security and confidentiality of sensitive customer information in order to prevent account hijacking," the supplement said. It added that consumers are concerned about online security and may be receptive to using a new form of authentication "if they perceive it as offering improved safety and convenience."
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Government Halts Sale of "Spy-Killer" Anti-Spyware Software
An operation that used bogus “scans” and illegal spam to market an anti-spyware program that didn’t work as claimed has had its assets frozen and been barred from making deceptive claims by a stipulated preliminary injunction order issued by a U.S. District Court judge at the request of the Federal Trade Commission. The agency alleges that the operation violated federal laws and has asked the court to permanently bar the deceptive marketing and order redress for consumers.
The FTC alleges that to capitalize on legitimate consumer concerns about spyware and induce consumers to download its anti-spyware product, “SpyKiller,” the operation aggressively and deceptively marketed SpyKiller, using the Web sites of affiliates, banner and pop-up ads, and spam.
The FTC alleges defendants sent pop-up and e-mail messages informing consumers that their computers had been remotely “scanned” and that spyware had been “detected” even though defendants had not performed any such scans. The defendants’ marketing materials urged consumers to access the SpyKiller Web site to get a “free scan” for spyware. While the SpyKiller “scan” was running, the program displayed a status report entitled “Spyware Found on your PC:” that included a category called “Live Spyware Processes.” In fact, the FTC alleges, this category deceptively identified anti-virus programs, word processing programs, or any of the processes running on the system as spyware. Then, even though the “scan” itself was free, consumers had to pay roughly $39.95 to enable SpyKiller’s “removal” capabilities. Defendants promised in their marketing materials that SpyKiller would find and remove “all” spyware, including “all traces” of particular spyware on consumers’ computers. However, the FTC complaint alleges the software failed to remove significant amounts of spyware, including specified spyware defendants claimed on their Web site to remove. The agency alleges that the deceptive claims violate the FTC Act.
The FTC also alleges that spam messages promoting the SpyKiller software contained similar deceptive claims, failed to identify themselves as advertising, used false “from” lines, gave no valid postal addresses, and failed to provide consumers with notice of and the ability to “opt-out,” in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act.
The court entered a temporary restraining order on June 1, 2005, and a stipulated preliminary injunction order on June 14, 2005. The agency is seeking a permanent ban on the deceptive claims and will ask the court to order consumer redress from defendants Trustsoft, Inc. and its Houston, Texas-based principal, Danilo Ladendorf.
An operation that used bogus “scans” and illegal spam to market an anti-spyware program that didn’t work as claimed has had its assets frozen and been barred from making deceptive claims by a stipulated preliminary injunction order issued by a U.S. District Court judge at the request of the Federal Trade Commission. The agency alleges that the operation violated federal laws and has asked the court to permanently bar the deceptive marketing and order redress for consumers.
The FTC alleges that to capitalize on legitimate consumer concerns about spyware and induce consumers to download its anti-spyware product, “SpyKiller,” the operation aggressively and deceptively marketed SpyKiller, using the Web sites of affiliates, banner and pop-up ads, and spam.
The FTC alleges defendants sent pop-up and e-mail messages informing consumers that their computers had been remotely “scanned” and that spyware had been “detected” even though defendants had not performed any such scans. The defendants’ marketing materials urged consumers to access the SpyKiller Web site to get a “free scan” for spyware. While the SpyKiller “scan” was running, the program displayed a status report entitled “Spyware Found on your PC:” that included a category called “Live Spyware Processes.” In fact, the FTC alleges, this category deceptively identified anti-virus programs, word processing programs, or any of the processes running on the system as spyware. Then, even though the “scan” itself was free, consumers had to pay roughly $39.95 to enable SpyKiller’s “removal” capabilities. Defendants promised in their marketing materials that SpyKiller would find and remove “all” spyware, including “all traces” of particular spyware on consumers’ computers. However, the FTC complaint alleges the software failed to remove significant amounts of spyware, including specified spyware defendants claimed on their Web site to remove. The agency alleges that the deceptive claims violate the FTC Act.
The FTC also alleges that spam messages promoting the SpyKiller software contained similar deceptive claims, failed to identify themselves as advertising, used false “from” lines, gave no valid postal addresses, and failed to provide consumers with notice of and the ability to “opt-out,” in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act.
The court entered a temporary restraining order on June 1, 2005, and a stipulated preliminary injunction order on June 14, 2005. The agency is seeking a permanent ban on the deceptive claims and will ask the court to order consumer redress from defendants Trustsoft, Inc. and its Houston, Texas-based principal, Danilo Ladendorf.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
230,000 Candles Sold At Target Recalled, Possibility of Outside Decoration Catching Fire
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has announced a voluntary recall by Target stores of "birch and bark" candles that are apparently dangerous. According to the government agency, the decorative covering around the candle can ignite and cause a fire. The CPSC also reported that there have been 18 reports of fires, 5 of which caused property damage.
According to Target, the candles were sold for between $6 and $15 at Target stores nationwide from September 2004 through January 2005. The retailer is requesting that anyone owning the candles return them to the nearest Target store. Consumers will receive a $15 Target gift card as compensation.
For additional information, contact Target toll-free at (800) 440-0680 between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has announced a voluntary recall by Target stores of "birch and bark" candles that are apparently dangerous. According to the government agency, the decorative covering around the candle can ignite and cause a fire. The CPSC also reported that there have been 18 reports of fires, 5 of which caused property damage.
According to Target, the candles were sold for between $6 and $15 at Target stores nationwide from September 2004 through January 2005. The retailer is requesting that anyone owning the candles return them to the nearest Target store. Consumers will receive a $15 Target gift card as compensation.
For additional information, contact Target toll-free at (800) 440-0680 between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Fireworks Safety Tips for July 4th
A new study by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff finds nearly 70 percent of all fireworks-related injuries take place around the 4th of July holiday. The study also found that more than 50 percent of those injuries occur to children and teenagers. The top three injury-causing fireworks are firecrackers, sparklers, and rockets. Those fireworks account for nearly half of all injuries.
A new study by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff finds nearly 70 percent of all fireworks-related injuries take place around the 4th of July holiday. The study also found that more than 50 percent of those injuries occur to children and teenagers. The top three injury-causing fireworks are firecrackers, sparklers, and rockets. Those fireworks account for nearly half of all injuries.
To help reduce the number of fireworks-related injuries this summer, CPSC and federal law enforcement agencies are encouraging consumers to keep fireworks out of the hands of children, to safely use legal fireworks and never buy or use illegal fireworks.
CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton said parents often don’t realize that sparklers, for instance, burn at temperatures of about 2,000 degrees – hot enough to melt some metals. “The best way parents can keep their children safe this 4th of July is never allow young children to ignite or handle fireworks of any kind,” Stratton said. Children most often suffer burns, lacerations and eye injuries.
CPSC’s staff estimates that there were 9,600 emergency room-treated injuries associated with fireworks in 2004. 6,600 of the injuries occurred in a single month (June 19 – July 19, 2004).
In addition to encouraging the safe use of legal consumer fireworks, the federal government is committed to stopping the manufacture and sale of illegal fireworks, which could prove to be deadly if used by consumers. CPSC is working to do its part to keep American families safe by enforcing fireworks regulations and by prosecuting dealers and distributors who manufacture and sell illegal explosives.
As a part of its fireworks enforcement program, CPSC actively works with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Through undercover buys, online purchases, inspections and investigations, CPSC and ATF are tracking down and closing illegal roadside stands, warehouses and retail stores that sell professional grade explosives to consumers, and homes that serve as havens for the manufacture of dangerous fireworks devices. CPSC also works with the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs & Border Protection to prevent millions of hazardous and illegal fireworks from entering U.S. ports and reaching consumers. For example, since 1988, CPSC and the Bureau of Customs & Border Protection have seized or detained nearly 460 million hazardous fireworks at docks across the country. The investigative work conducted by CPSC and ATF has led to dozens of successful prosecutions by the Justice Department’s Office of Consumer Litigation and U.S. Attorney’s offices across the country.
CPSC recommends following these fireworks safety tips:
- Never allow young children to play with or ignite fireworks.
- Make sure fireworks are legal in your area before buying or using them.
- Adults should always supervise fireworks activities.
- Never try to re-light or pick up fireworks that have not fully functioned.
- Never point or throw fireworks at another person.
- Keep a bucket of water or a garden hose handy in case of fire or other mishap.
- Light one item at a time, then move back quickly.
- Never carry fireworks in a pocket or shoot them in metal or glass containers.
Friday, June 24, 2005
FDIC Remains Mum On Their Own Data Breach
Media outlets have been reporting for 15 days that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has notified thousands of employees that the organizations personal data records had been breached, and fraud had resulted from that breach. The news was first reported in the June 16 issue of The Washington Post.
Government Computer News, which obtained a copy of the letter reported on by the Post, said that employees were told that among the information obtained was "name, date of birth, salary, Social Security number and length of service." The letter also reportedly said that the breach occurred in 2004.
Since the organization's breach was made public, no official statements have been made, even after two weeks. Various media sources alternately report basic acknowledgments of the breach or referrals to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Despite part of the FDIC's mandate calling for "...identifying, monitoring and addressing risks to the deposit insurance funds...", the organization has been unacceptably silent on this matter.
Consumer Help Web will report at this site any information the FDIC eventually shares about their own data woes.
Media outlets have been reporting for 15 days that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has notified thousands of employees that the organizations personal data records had been breached, and fraud had resulted from that breach. The news was first reported in the June 16 issue of The Washington Post.
Government Computer News, which obtained a copy of the letter reported on by the Post, said that employees were told that among the information obtained was "name, date of birth, salary, Social Security number and length of service." The letter also reportedly said that the breach occurred in 2004.
Since the organization's breach was made public, no official statements have been made, even after two weeks. Various media sources alternately report basic acknowledgments of the breach or referrals to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Despite part of the FDIC's mandate calling for "...identifying, monitoring and addressing risks to the deposit insurance funds...", the organization has been unacceptably silent on this matter.
Consumer Help Web will report at this site any information the FDIC eventually shares about their own data woes.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
BJ's Wholesale Club Had Lax Data Security Says FTC
BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its failure to take appropriate security measures to protect the sensitive information of thousands of its customers was an unfair practice that violated federal law. According to the FTC, this information was used by an unauthorized person or persons to make millions of dollars of fraudulent purchases. The settlement will require BJ’s to implement a comprehensive information security program and obtain audits by an independent third party security professional every other year for 20 years.
Natick, Massachusetts-based BJ’s operates 150 warehouse stores and 78 gas stations in 16 states in the Eastern United States. Approximately 8 million consumers are currently members, with net sales totaling about $6.6 billion in 2003.
"Consumers must have the confidence that companies that possess their confidential information will handle it with due care and appropriately provide for its security,” said Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman of the FTC. “This case demonstrates our intention to challenge companies that fail to protect adequately consumers’ sensitive information.”
According to the FTC’s complaint, BJ’s uses a computer network to obtain bank authorization for credit and debit card purchases and to track inventory. For credit and debit card purchases at its stores, BJ’s collects information, such as name, card number, and expiration date, from the magnetic stripe on the back of the cards. The information is sent from the computer network in the store to BJ’s central datacenter computer network and from there through outside computer networks to the bank that issued the card.
The FTC charged that BJ’s engaged in a number of practices which, taken together, did not provide reasonable security for sensitive customer information. Specifically, the agency alleges that BJ’s:
BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its failure to take appropriate security measures to protect the sensitive information of thousands of its customers was an unfair practice that violated federal law. According to the FTC, this information was used by an unauthorized person or persons to make millions of dollars of fraudulent purchases. The settlement will require BJ’s to implement a comprehensive information security program and obtain audits by an independent third party security professional every other year for 20 years.
Natick, Massachusetts-based BJ’s operates 150 warehouse stores and 78 gas stations in 16 states in the Eastern United States. Approximately 8 million consumers are currently members, with net sales totaling about $6.6 billion in 2003.
"Consumers must have the confidence that companies that possess their confidential information will handle it with due care and appropriately provide for its security,” said Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman of the FTC. “This case demonstrates our intention to challenge companies that fail to protect adequately consumers’ sensitive information.”
According to the FTC’s complaint, BJ’s uses a computer network to obtain bank authorization for credit and debit card purchases and to track inventory. For credit and debit card purchases at its stores, BJ’s collects information, such as name, card number, and expiration date, from the magnetic stripe on the back of the cards. The information is sent from the computer network in the store to BJ’s central datacenter computer network and from there through outside computer networks to the bank that issued the card.
The FTC charged that BJ’s engaged in a number of practices which, taken together, did not provide reasonable security for sensitive customer information. Specifically, the agency alleges that BJ’s:
- Failed to encrypt consumer information when it was transmitted or stored on computers in BJ’s stores;
- Created unnecessary risks to the information by storing it for up to 30 days, in violation of bank security rules, even when it no longer needed the information;
- Stored the information in files that could be accessed using commonly known default user IDs and passwords;
- Failed to use readily available security measures to prevent unauthorized wireless connections to its networks; and
- Failed to use measures sufficient to detect unauthorized access to the networks or to conduct security investigations.
The FTC’s complaint charges that the fraudulent purchases were made using counterfeit copies of credit and debit cards used at BJ’s stores, and that the counterfeit cards contained the same personal information BJ’s had collected from the magnetic stripes of the cards. After the fraud was discovered, banks cancelled and re-issued thousands of credit and debit cards, and consumers experienced inconvenience, worry, and time loss dealing with the affected cards.
Since then, banks and credit unions have filed lawsuits against BJ’s and pursued bank procedures seeking the return millions of dollars in fraudulent purchases and operating expenses. According to BJ's SEC filings, as of May 2005, the amount of outstanding claims was approximately $13 million.
The FTC alleges that BJ’s failure to secure customers’ sensitive information was an unfair practice because it caused substantial injury that was not reasonably avoidable by consumers and not outweighed by offsetting benefits to consumers or competition. The settlement requires BJ’s to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program that includes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards. The settlement also requires BJ’s to obtain an audit from a qualified, independent, third-party professional that its security program meets the standards of the order, and to comply with standard book keeping and record keeping provisions.
The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement was 5-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through July 16, 2005, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
CPSC To Review ATV Standards; Kids A Focus
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is investigating all-terrain vehicles and their "safety standards", paying close attention to children who use the vehicles.
Chairman Hal Stratton directed the agency June 8 to conduct a top-to-bottom review of “all existing ATV safety standards and make recommendations regarding the advisability and potential for issuing” rulemaking. Chairman Stratton emphasized that particular consideration should be given to improving ATV safety of young riders.
He also called for an exhaustive summary of ATV safety-related proposals, including pre-sale training/ certification requirements, enhanced warning labels, formal notification of safety rules by dealers to buyers, the addition of a youth ATV model appropriate for 14-year olds, written notification of child injury data at the time of sale and separate standards for tandem (two up) vehicles.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is investigating all-terrain vehicles and their "safety standards", paying close attention to children who use the vehicles.
Chairman Hal Stratton directed the agency June 8 to conduct a top-to-bottom review of “all existing ATV safety standards and make recommendations regarding the advisability and potential for issuing” rulemaking. Chairman Stratton emphasized that particular consideration should be given to improving ATV safety of young riders.
He also called for an exhaustive summary of ATV safety-related proposals, including pre-sale training/ certification requirements, enhanced warning labels, formal notification of safety rules by dealers to buyers, the addition of a youth ATV model appropriate for 14-year olds, written notification of child injury data at the time of sale and separate standards for tandem (two up) vehicles.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Consumer Group Attacks California Over Smog Check Costs
The State of California has announced that they will deny 3.4 million motorists consumer choice when it comes to where they have their cars inspected in the Smog Check program in 2005. The Department of Consumer Affairs' Bureau of Automotive Repair (DCA/BAR) will force 287,000 motorists each month to get their Smog Check inspections at a limited number of specialized "Test-Only" centers.
The remaining 6,000 licensed small businesses are enraged at the fact that they invested in the licenses, the trained technicians and sophisticated equipment but can no longer serve their customers. Dennis DeCota of the California Service Station and Automotive Repair Association says "the men and women in the auto repair industry spent more than $70,000 per shop to install expensive new emissions testing equipment and to train their employees. Now, the State of California says these 6,000 shops cannot serve their customers -- this is devastating to family-owned small businesses who believed in this air quality improvement program."
Likewise, consumers are outraged at the additional cost and inconvenience this mandate will require of them and their families. Under this mandate, they must take more time to get their car "smogged," pay additional testing fees and be bounced back and forth between test facilities and repair shops until their vehicle passes the emissions test. The Smog Check process could now take more than a day of personal time for those consumers who have been denied access to other licensed facilities.
DCA/BAR says regrettably that they can no longer give consumers choice to go to traditional test-and-repair facilities or "one-stop-shops" for Smog Checks because of federal guidelines and results of state air quality studies conducted in 1998 and 2000. However, neither the federal law nor studies suggest that the state be required to send 3.4 million motorists to "test-Only" facilities. In fact, under federal law passed in 1995 individual states are specifically allowed to conduct their Smog Check programs without using any "Test-Only" stations whatsoever.
Further, the state oversight committee on Smog Check, called the Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee, heard just this month from Dr. Jeffrey Williams of the University of California at Davis that the state's conclusion about the superiority of "Test-Only" may be seriously flawed. In fact, after reviewing the records of almost one million vehicles, Dr. Williams asserts there is not much of a difference between the failure rates achieved at "Test-Only" facilities vs. the "one-stop-shops" favored by consumers.
More than 14,000 consumers have signed petitions asking Governor Schwarzenegger to step in and to help simplify the Smog Check program for consumers. "There is very little reason to increase costs and deny consumers choice when the air quality is not being improved," said Jim Conran of Consumers First. "I call upon the Governor to use his authority to clear the air and gain control of the bureaucrats in Sacramento to simplify and improve this important air quality program for consumers."
The State of California has announced that they will deny 3.4 million motorists consumer choice when it comes to where they have their cars inspected in the Smog Check program in 2005. The Department of Consumer Affairs' Bureau of Automotive Repair (DCA/BAR) will force 287,000 motorists each month to get their Smog Check inspections at a limited number of specialized "Test-Only" centers.
The remaining 6,000 licensed small businesses are enraged at the fact that they invested in the licenses, the trained technicians and sophisticated equipment but can no longer serve their customers. Dennis DeCota of the California Service Station and Automotive Repair Association says "the men and women in the auto repair industry spent more than $70,000 per shop to install expensive new emissions testing equipment and to train their employees. Now, the State of California says these 6,000 shops cannot serve their customers -- this is devastating to family-owned small businesses who believed in this air quality improvement program."
Likewise, consumers are outraged at the additional cost and inconvenience this mandate will require of them and their families. Under this mandate, they must take more time to get their car "smogged," pay additional testing fees and be bounced back and forth between test facilities and repair shops until their vehicle passes the emissions test. The Smog Check process could now take more than a day of personal time for those consumers who have been denied access to other licensed facilities.
DCA/BAR says regrettably that they can no longer give consumers choice to go to traditional test-and-repair facilities or "one-stop-shops" for Smog Checks because of federal guidelines and results of state air quality studies conducted in 1998 and 2000. However, neither the federal law nor studies suggest that the state be required to send 3.4 million motorists to "test-Only" facilities. In fact, under federal law passed in 1995 individual states are specifically allowed to conduct their Smog Check programs without using any "Test-Only" stations whatsoever.
Further, the state oversight committee on Smog Check, called the Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee, heard just this month from Dr. Jeffrey Williams of the University of California at Davis that the state's conclusion about the superiority of "Test-Only" may be seriously flawed. In fact, after reviewing the records of almost one million vehicles, Dr. Williams asserts there is not much of a difference between the failure rates achieved at "Test-Only" facilities vs. the "one-stop-shops" favored by consumers.
More than 14,000 consumers have signed petitions asking Governor Schwarzenegger to step in and to help simplify the Smog Check program for consumers. "There is very little reason to increase costs and deny consumers choice when the air quality is not being improved," said Jim Conran of Consumers First. "I call upon the Governor to use his authority to clear the air and gain control of the bureaucrats in Sacramento to simplify and improve this important air quality program for consumers."
Monday, June 20, 2005
Heart Devices Lead To Manufacturer's Recall, FDA Involved
Guidant Corporation is working with the US Food and Drug Administration to spread the word about a recall that may not be as for consumers to resolve as traditional recalls. At risk are consumers suffering from heart disease who have had cardiac defibrillators implanted in their body. According to the FDA, some of Guidant devices can develop an internal short circuit without warning, resulting in failure to deliver a shock when needed.
The devices affected by this notification are:
Guidant Corporation is working with the US Food and Drug Administration to spread the word about a recall that may not be as for consumers to resolve as traditional recalls. At risk are consumers suffering from heart disease who have had cardiac defibrillators implanted in their body. According to the FDA, some of Guidant devices can develop an internal short circuit without warning, resulting in failure to deliver a shock when needed.
The devices affected by this notification are:
- PRIZM 2 DR, Model 1861, manufactured on or before April 16, 2002
- CONTAK RENEWAL, Model H135, manufactured on or before August 26, 2004
- CONTAK RENEWAL 2, Model H155, manufactured on or before August 26, 2004
The FDA reported that it believed two deaths were linked to malfunctions in these units. The company and government agency are also reviewing data regarding Guidant's PRIZM AVT, VITALITY AVT, RENEWAL 3 AVT and RENEWAL 4 AVT units.
For now, the FDA advises taking the following steps:
- If you have not already been notified, contact your doctor to determine if you have an affected PRIZM 2, CONTAK RENEWAL, or CONTAK RENEWAL 2 device.
- Continue to keep your regular doctor appointments.
- If you feel an electrical shock from your device, immediately contact your doctor.
- If there is an audible "beeping" from your CONTAK RENEWAL or RENEWAL 2 device, immediately contact your doctor or go to the nearest emergency room. Beeping may mean that your defibrillator is damaged.
Friday, June 17, 2005
40 Million Credit Cards Hacked
CardSystems Solutions, a company that processes credit card payments, reported that credit card security was breached in its computer systems. Information for up to 40 million credit cards may have been taken from the system, the company announced, as the result of a computer break-in identified on Sunday May 22. The company reportedly notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the incident on Monday, May 23, but details did not emerge until yesterday.
Credit card issuers were quick to react to the news. MasterCard, which reported that nearly 14 million of the credit cards were MasterCards, reiterated its "Zero Liability" policy, a program that relieves consumers of liability for charges in such matters.
"Hardly a week goes by without startling new examples of breaches of sensitive personal data reminding us how important it is to pass a comprehensive Identity theft prevention bill in Congress quickly," said Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Consumers' personal and financial data has become the gold of the 21st century and we need to protect it accordingly." Schumer is the co-author of a bill that would install various consumer protections in the industry, in addition to creating national standards for handling sensitive consumer information.
Security experts throughout the industry are warning consumers to be especially vigilant now because the CardSystems incident is apparently the work of hackers rather than the loss or exposure of data. "Check your statement at least every month," advises Joan Bounacos, President of Consumer Help Web, a consumer advocacy company.
Bounacos called on credit card issuers to react faster to threats and notify consumers as soon as their data is exposed. "CardSystems reported that they found the incident on a Sunday, but didn't report anything to the FBI until Monday," Bounacos said. "Why expose consumers that additional day? Even though credit card issuers won't hold consumers liable, the average consumer will spend hours fixing their credit and arranging to have the charges removed. No delay is acceptable."
CardSystems Solutions, a company that processes credit card payments, reported that credit card security was breached in its computer systems. Information for up to 40 million credit cards may have been taken from the system, the company announced, as the result of a computer break-in identified on Sunday May 22. The company reportedly notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the incident on Monday, May 23, but details did not emerge until yesterday.
Credit card issuers were quick to react to the news. MasterCard, which reported that nearly 14 million of the credit cards were MasterCards, reiterated its "Zero Liability" policy, a program that relieves consumers of liability for charges in such matters.
"Hardly a week goes by without startling new examples of breaches of sensitive personal data reminding us how important it is to pass a comprehensive Identity theft prevention bill in Congress quickly," said Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Consumers' personal and financial data has become the gold of the 21st century and we need to protect it accordingly." Schumer is the co-author of a bill that would install various consumer protections in the industry, in addition to creating national standards for handling sensitive consumer information.
Security experts throughout the industry are warning consumers to be especially vigilant now because the CardSystems incident is apparently the work of hackers rather than the loss or exposure of data. "Check your statement at least every month," advises Joan Bounacos, President of Consumer Help Web, a consumer advocacy company.
Bounacos called on credit card issuers to react faster to threats and notify consumers as soon as their data is exposed. "CardSystems reported that they found the incident on a Sunday, but didn't report anything to the FBI until Monday," Bounacos said. "Why expose consumers that additional day? Even though credit card issuers won't hold consumers liable, the average consumer will spend hours fixing their credit and arranging to have the charges removed. No delay is acceptable."
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Free National Flood Insurance Information
If you've always assumed that your homeowner's insurance covers flood damage, think again. Learn how to protect yourself, your family and your property from the #1 natural disaster by sending for the free National Flood Insurance Guide from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
For your free copy, send your name and address to the Federal Citizen Information Center, Dept. 596M, Pueblo, CO 81009. Or call toll-free 1 (888) 8 PUEBLO
If you've always assumed that your homeowner's insurance covers flood damage, think again. Learn how to protect yourself, your family and your property from the #1 natural disaster by sending for the free National Flood Insurance Guide from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
For your free copy, send your name and address to the Federal Citizen Information Center, Dept. 596M, Pueblo, CO 81009. Or call toll-free 1 (888) 8 PUEBLO
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Battery for Razor Scooter Recalled. Half A Million Units Can Overheat
Those razor scooters that were the bane of emergency room physicians nationwide just a few years ago have another problem -- their battery.
According to a joint recall by scooter maker Razor USA and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, 584,000 of the batteries sold for various Razor vehicles can overheat. No injuries have been attributed to the condition and only six minor incidents of property damage have been reported despite 144 incidents being reported.
"This is a smart recall because children and young people are so often involved," says Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "There hav been no injuries and only minor damage, but Razor is being very consumer friendly in recalling these units when even the slightest risk was detected.
The recall involves PowMax battery chargers distributed with Razor battery-powered scooters and ride-on vehicles. The name “PowMax” appears prominently on the face of the battery charger unit. The vehicles that were sold with the recalled chargers include Razor™ electric scooters (Models E100, E125, E300, E300S, E200, and E200S), Razor Pocket Rocket™ mini electric motorcycles, Razor Ground Force™ electric go karts, and Razor Chopper mini electric motorcycles.
Prices for the units ranged from $130 to $250. Consumers owning one of these models can call Razor directly toll-free at (866) 664-1409 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday ET.
Those razor scooters that were the bane of emergency room physicians nationwide just a few years ago have another problem -- their battery.
According to a joint recall by scooter maker Razor USA and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, 584,000 of the batteries sold for various Razor vehicles can overheat. No injuries have been attributed to the condition and only six minor incidents of property damage have been reported despite 144 incidents being reported.
"This is a smart recall because children and young people are so often involved," says Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "There hav been no injuries and only minor damage, but Razor is being very consumer friendly in recalling these units when even the slightest risk was detected.
The recall involves PowMax battery chargers distributed with Razor battery-powered scooters and ride-on vehicles. The name “PowMax” appears prominently on the face of the battery charger unit. The vehicles that were sold with the recalled chargers include Razor™ electric scooters (Models E100, E125, E300, E300S, E200, and E200S), Razor Pocket Rocket™ mini electric motorcycles, Razor Ground Force™ electric go karts, and Razor Chopper mini electric motorcycles.
Prices for the units ranged from $130 to $250. Consumers owning one of these models can call Razor directly toll-free at (866) 664-1409 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday ET.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Consumers Get Free CARFAX Reports On Certified Hondas and Acuras
Used car shoppers looking for Honda and Acura Certified Pre-Owned (CPO) vehicles now have free access to Carfax Vehicle History Reports. Visitors to AutoTrader.com get on-the-spot vehicle history information direct from Carfax to make more informed buying decisions. Every Honda and Acura CPO vehicle comes with the exclusive Carfax Buyback Guarantee.
Used car shoppers looking for Honda and Acura Certified Pre-Owned (CPO) vehicles now have free access to Carfax Vehicle History Reports. Visitors to AutoTrader.com get on-the-spot vehicle history information direct from Carfax to make more informed buying decisions. Every Honda and Acura CPO vehicle comes with the exclusive Carfax Buyback Guarantee.
"Our goal is to make Carfax Vehicle History Reports readily accessible to anyone shopping for a used car," said Larry Gamache, communications director at Carfax. "We're very excited to have Honda and Acura join the other leading CPO programs already offering free Carfax Reports on AutoTrader.com."
Fourteen CPO programs have chosen Carfax as the exclusive provider of vehicle history reports. Free access to Carfax Vehicle History Reports for the manufacturers listed on AutoTrader.com is also available through each manufacturer Web site.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Visa Launches "Advanced Authorization" To Fight Fraud
In a credit card industry reeling from regular announcements that consumer information has been compromised in some way, Visa USA announced today that it has introduced a new scoring system that will help the company detect fraud at the transactional and global levels.
"Fighting fraud and protecting cardholders has always been a high priority for Visa," said Jean Bruesewitz, senior vice president, Processing and Emerging Products, Visa USA. "Visa is continually investing in the most sophisticated fraud-fighting systems to stay one step ahead of the criminals.Advanced Authorization adds another layer of security and ensures ever increased cardholder confidence with each Visa payment card purchase."
The company said that every transaction submitted to its network would be subject to this evaluation, giving banks an instant rating on a transaction's potential for fraud. By comparing transactions across the network, the company hopes to more easily identify credit card thieves who may run batches of credit cards through accounts to determine which ones are valid for spending.
Visa also said in a statement that "Visa-system fraud" was at an all-time low of 5 cents per $100.
In a credit card industry reeling from regular announcements that consumer information has been compromised in some way, Visa USA announced today that it has introduced a new scoring system that will help the company detect fraud at the transactional and global levels.
"Fighting fraud and protecting cardholders has always been a high priority for Visa," said Jean Bruesewitz, senior vice president, Processing and Emerging Products, Visa USA. "Visa is continually investing in the most sophisticated fraud-fighting systems to stay one step ahead of the criminals.Advanced Authorization adds another layer of security and ensures ever increased cardholder confidence with each Visa payment card purchase."
The company said that every transaction submitted to its network would be subject to this evaluation, giving banks an instant rating on a transaction's potential for fraud. By comparing transactions across the network, the company hopes to more easily identify credit card thieves who may run batches of credit cards through accounts to determine which ones are valid for spending.
Visa also said in a statement that "Visa-system fraud" was at an all-time low of 5 cents per $100.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Bunn Recalls 1.75 Million Coffee Makers
Bunn-O-Matic Corporation, a manufacturer of high end coffee makers, announced a recall today of 1.75 million coffee makers in conjunction with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. According to the government agency, the coffeemaker’s plastic pour-in bowl and lid can melt or ignite due to an electrical failure.
Seventeen cases of the bowl or lid melting have been reported, although no injuries have been traced to the defect. The company has pleged to provide a free repair or a discount towards a future model.
The affected models are GR-10B, GR-10W, B-10B, B-10W, and BT-10B (including any of those same model numbers ending in the additional letter D) with six-digit date codes ending in “01,” “02,” or “03.” Also involved in the recall are the same models with dates codes ending in “04” and middle digits between “01” and “21.” (If the date code has a seventh digit, consumers should ignore the last digit and use the first six digits.). The model number can be found on a small sticker on the bottom of the coffee maker.
Consumers owning one of these coffeemakers can get more information by calling Bunn-O-Matic at (800) 385-2652 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.
Bunn-O-Matic Corporation, a manufacturer of high end coffee makers, announced a recall today of 1.75 million coffee makers in conjunction with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. According to the government agency, the coffeemaker’s plastic pour-in bowl and lid can melt or ignite due to an electrical failure.
Seventeen cases of the bowl or lid melting have been reported, although no injuries have been traced to the defect. The company has pleged to provide a free repair or a discount towards a future model.
The affected models are GR-10B, GR-10W, B-10B, B-10W, and BT-10B (including any of those same model numbers ending in the additional letter D) with six-digit date codes ending in “01,” “02,” or “03.” Also involved in the recall are the same models with dates codes ending in “04” and middle digits between “01” and “21.” (If the date code has a seventh digit, consumers should ignore the last digit and use the first six digits.). The model number can be found on a small sticker on the bottom of the coffee maker.
Consumers owning one of these coffeemakers can get more information by calling Bunn-O-Matic at (800) 385-2652 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Symantec Sues Hotbar Over Adware
Symantec Corporation, makers of PC software that include a popular anti-virus package, today announced that it has filed suit against Hotbar.com, Inc. The suit asks the court for a ruling supporting Symantec's right to detect certain Hotbar program files as adware and to empower customers with the ability to remove the files from their computers.
Symantec is not seeking damages as part of the suit. Symantec is petitioning for a declaratory judgment by the court affirming Symantec's assertion that certain Hotbar program files are indeed adware and can be treated as computer security risks.
"By asking the court for clarification on this issue in our favor, we hope to continue alerting our customers about the presence of these program files, protecting them against possible security risks," said Joy Cartun, senior director of legal affairs for Symantec. "Through this effort, we're trying to ensure that our customers have more control over the programs that run on their computers."
The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
Symantec Corporation, makers of PC software that include a popular anti-virus package, today announced that it has filed suit against Hotbar.com, Inc. The suit asks the court for a ruling supporting Symantec's right to detect certain Hotbar program files as adware and to empower customers with the ability to remove the files from their computers.
Symantec is not seeking damages as part of the suit. Symantec is petitioning for a declaratory judgment by the court affirming Symantec's assertion that certain Hotbar program files are indeed adware and can be treated as computer security risks.
"By asking the court for clarification on this issue in our favor, we hope to continue alerting our customers about the presence of these program files, protecting them against possible security risks," said Joy Cartun, senior director of legal affairs for Symantec. "Through this effort, we're trying to ensure that our customers have more control over the programs that run on their computers."
The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Cathay Pacific Voted World's Best Airline Says Polling Firm
For the second time in the survey history, Cathay Pacific has scooped the prestigious Airline of the Year title for 2005, in the latest World Airline Awards announced today by Skytrax Research of London.
The 2005 World Airline Awards are based on the annual Airline Survey conducted by Skytrax - carried out between June 2004 and May 2005. The survey measures over 35 different aspects of passenger satisfaction for each airline's product and service standards, evaluating the 'typical' travel experience. This independent survey is regarded as a primary benchmarking tool for Passenger Satisfaction levels of airlines throughout the world.
Worldwide survey interviews totalled a massive 12,334,283 respondents - an increase of 1.5 million interviews on the 2004 result, with over 94 different passenger nationalities participating in the survey.
The World's Top 10 Airlines - 2005
1 Cathay Pacific
2 Qantas Airways
3 Emirates
4 Singapore Airlines
5 British Airways
6 Malaysia Airlines
7 Thai Airways
8 Qatar Airways
9 Asiana Airlines
10 ANA All Nippon Airways
Selected regional rankings listed below: Cathay Pacific scooped the winners title as Airline of the Year 2005, having previously won the award in 2003. In second place is Qantas Airways (up from 4th last year), with Emirates in third position, maintaining their strong rankings in the survey.
Commenting on the results, Peter Miller of Skytrax .... "Cathay Pacific can be justly proud of this title as Best Airline, having received a very steady level of support and admiration from customers around the world throughout the survey period. As a service industry, the airline business is all about people, and in that quarter Cathay Pacific was repeatedly singled out for the high quality and consistency of it's front-line staff - in both the airport environment and onboard flights. Allied to some very high onboard product standards, Cathay certainly seems to have achieved it's motto of 'service straight from the heart' and wowed passengers accordingly."
"It is important to note that this is the most representative survey of airline passengers across the globe" added Miller. " It encompasses all passenger types - be they business travellers, vacationers, backpackers and more. This ensures the survey truly reflects opinions from the majority, rather than a selective study which makes awards based upon a small number of business travellers only. Whilst every airline likes to fill up their First or Business class cabins with higher revenue passengers, much of an airline's reputation is dependent on the quality of product and service they supply to their Economy class customers."
As well as taking the Airline of the Year title, Cathay Pacific was also named airline with the Best Intercontinental First Class, following on from their earlier awards in 2005 for the Best First/Business class airport lounge facilities.
Cathay Pacific Chief Executive Officer Philip Chen said: "It is a great honor to have Cathay Pacific voted the Skytrax 'Airline of the Year' because it is such a world-class award. I would like to thank every member of staff around the world whose professionalism and dedication to excellence made this great achievement possible. Being a repeat winner reflects our commitment to deliver consistently high standards of service across the board. It also underscores our ongoing effort to make Hong Kong more attractive to passengers as a global aviation hub and gateway to the Chinese mainland, and our determination to make Cathay Pacific the world's most admired airline."
Qantas Airways takes the 2005 Airline of the Year Silver Award for 2nd place, moving up from 4th position in 2004, with Emirates securing the Airline of the Year Bronze Award for 3rd place.
Across the different regions, Air Canada's ranking as Best Airline North America marks a resurgence of the airline from recent financial problems. "We are honoured to be acknowledged by travellers around the world as the best airline in North America," said Montie Brewer, president and CEO of Air Canada. "This award confirms that our focus on customer-driven products and innovation coupled with quality service delivery is truly what our customers want."
JetBlue Airways maintained its excellent service reputation by taking 2nd place for North America as well being named the world's Best Low-cost airline.
British Airways takes the title as Best Airline in Europe, with it's Club World service being named as the world's Best Business Class. PGA Portugalia is the second placed European airline, as well as being named Best Regional Airline Europe - PGA Portugalia being is a very small airline compared to their European rivals. The third place in Europe goes to FINNAIR, who were better ranked by customers for their short haul product in Europe, contrasted to a rather outdated intercontinental product.
In one of the closest regional results, Best Airline Middle East goes to Emirates, who were only marginally ahead of Qatar Airways, and a resurgent Gulf Air in third place.
Malaysia Airlines secured the title of Best Intercontinental Economy Class, with Emirates 2nd and Singapore Airlines 3rd. "Whilst thousands of different reasons were given by passengers for their different airline nominations in this category, seat comfort was the most prominent and determined the final leadership of Malaysia Airlines over Emirates" added Miller. "On a long haul flight, customers want to be comfortable/rest/sleep (seat comfort), enjoy a meal (onboard catering), be entertained (inflight entertainment) and be well looked after (cabin staff). Airlines achieving leadership in this category are those that manage to offer the correct balance between these aspects".
South African Airways continues its dominance of the Best Airline Africa award, taking the title in 2005 for the 6th consecutive year, ahead of Ethiopian Airlines and Kenya Airways.
Jet Airways is named Best Airline India / Southern Asia, coinciding with the airline's launch of direct flights between India and the UK - second place in this category going to SriLankan Airlines with Air Sahara in 3rd.
No part of the world has not been touched by the low-cost airline syndrome, and the 2005 World Awards have consequently expanded to include a number of key low-cost categories. Named as the World's Best low-cost airline is JetBlue Airways - ahead of Air Berlin 2nd (also named Europe's Best low-cost airline) and Virgin Blue 3rd (Best low-cost airline Australia/Pacific).
"Our congratulations go to all of the World Airline Award winners, who can hold their heads high knowing that their customers have given them a vote of approval and support" said Miller. "We look upon these awards as the world championships of the airline industry - where every contestant has to achieve the highest goal, if they are to succeed."
For the second time in the survey history, Cathay Pacific has scooped the prestigious Airline of the Year title for 2005, in the latest World Airline Awards announced today by Skytrax Research of London.
The 2005 World Airline Awards are based on the annual Airline Survey conducted by Skytrax - carried out between June 2004 and May 2005. The survey measures over 35 different aspects of passenger satisfaction for each airline's product and service standards, evaluating the 'typical' travel experience. This independent survey is regarded as a primary benchmarking tool for Passenger Satisfaction levels of airlines throughout the world.
Worldwide survey interviews totalled a massive 12,334,283 respondents - an increase of 1.5 million interviews on the 2004 result, with over 94 different passenger nationalities participating in the survey.
The World's Top 10 Airlines - 2005
1 Cathay Pacific
2 Qantas Airways
3 Emirates
4 Singapore Airlines
5 British Airways
6 Malaysia Airlines
7 Thai Airways
8 Qatar Airways
9 Asiana Airlines
10 ANA All Nippon Airways
Selected regional rankings listed below: Cathay Pacific scooped the winners title as Airline of the Year 2005, having previously won the award in 2003. In second place is Qantas Airways (up from 4th last year), with Emirates in third position, maintaining their strong rankings in the survey.
Commenting on the results, Peter Miller of Skytrax .... "Cathay Pacific can be justly proud of this title as Best Airline, having received a very steady level of support and admiration from customers around the world throughout the survey period. As a service industry, the airline business is all about people, and in that quarter Cathay Pacific was repeatedly singled out for the high quality and consistency of it's front-line staff - in both the airport environment and onboard flights. Allied to some very high onboard product standards, Cathay certainly seems to have achieved it's motto of 'service straight from the heart' and wowed passengers accordingly."
"It is important to note that this is the most representative survey of airline passengers across the globe" added Miller. " It encompasses all passenger types - be they business travellers, vacationers, backpackers and more. This ensures the survey truly reflects opinions from the majority, rather than a selective study which makes awards based upon a small number of business travellers only. Whilst every airline likes to fill up their First or Business class cabins with higher revenue passengers, much of an airline's reputation is dependent on the quality of product and service they supply to their Economy class customers."
As well as taking the Airline of the Year title, Cathay Pacific was also named airline with the Best Intercontinental First Class, following on from their earlier awards in 2005 for the Best First/Business class airport lounge facilities.
Cathay Pacific Chief Executive Officer Philip Chen said: "It is a great honor to have Cathay Pacific voted the Skytrax 'Airline of the Year' because it is such a world-class award. I would like to thank every member of staff around the world whose professionalism and dedication to excellence made this great achievement possible. Being a repeat winner reflects our commitment to deliver consistently high standards of service across the board. It also underscores our ongoing effort to make Hong Kong more attractive to passengers as a global aviation hub and gateway to the Chinese mainland, and our determination to make Cathay Pacific the world's most admired airline."
Qantas Airways takes the 2005 Airline of the Year Silver Award for 2nd place, moving up from 4th position in 2004, with Emirates securing the Airline of the Year Bronze Award for 3rd place.
Across the different regions, Air Canada's ranking as Best Airline North America marks a resurgence of the airline from recent financial problems. "We are honoured to be acknowledged by travellers around the world as the best airline in North America," said Montie Brewer, president and CEO of Air Canada. "This award confirms that our focus on customer-driven products and innovation coupled with quality service delivery is truly what our customers want."
JetBlue Airways maintained its excellent service reputation by taking 2nd place for North America as well being named the world's Best Low-cost airline.
British Airways takes the title as Best Airline in Europe, with it's Club World service being named as the world's Best Business Class. PGA Portugalia is the second placed European airline, as well as being named Best Regional Airline Europe - PGA Portugalia being is a very small airline compared to their European rivals. The third place in Europe goes to FINNAIR, who were better ranked by customers for their short haul product in Europe, contrasted to a rather outdated intercontinental product.
In one of the closest regional results, Best Airline Middle East goes to Emirates, who were only marginally ahead of Qatar Airways, and a resurgent Gulf Air in third place.
Malaysia Airlines secured the title of Best Intercontinental Economy Class, with Emirates 2nd and Singapore Airlines 3rd. "Whilst thousands of different reasons were given by passengers for their different airline nominations in this category, seat comfort was the most prominent and determined the final leadership of Malaysia Airlines over Emirates" added Miller. "On a long haul flight, customers want to be comfortable/rest/sleep (seat comfort), enjoy a meal (onboard catering), be entertained (inflight entertainment) and be well looked after (cabin staff). Airlines achieving leadership in this category are those that manage to offer the correct balance between these aspects".
South African Airways continues its dominance of the Best Airline Africa award, taking the title in 2005 for the 6th consecutive year, ahead of Ethiopian Airlines and Kenya Airways.
Jet Airways is named Best Airline India / Southern Asia, coinciding with the airline's launch of direct flights between India and the UK - second place in this category going to SriLankan Airlines with Air Sahara in 3rd.
No part of the world has not been touched by the low-cost airline syndrome, and the 2005 World Awards have consequently expanded to include a number of key low-cost categories. Named as the World's Best low-cost airline is JetBlue Airways - ahead of Air Berlin 2nd (also named Europe's Best low-cost airline) and Virgin Blue 3rd (Best low-cost airline Australia/Pacific).
"Our congratulations go to all of the World Airline Award winners, who can hold their heads high knowing that their customers have given them a vote of approval and support" said Miller. "We look upon these awards as the world championships of the airline industry - where every contestant has to achieve the highest goal, if they are to succeed."
Friday, June 03, 2005
EPA Forces Hartz To Pull Pet Products
The United States Environmental Protection Agency today insisted that Hartz Mountain Corp. cancel uses of several flea and tick products that may be associated with a range of adverse reactions, including hair loss, salivation, tremors and numerous deaths in cats and kittens.
The common pet product brand names which are involved in this action include: Hartz Advanced Care 4 in 1 Flea & Tick Drops Plus+ for Cats and Kittens; Hartz Advanced Care Brand Flea and Tick Drops(Plus) for Cats and Kittens; Hartz Advanced Care 3 in 1 Flea & Tick Drops for Cats and Kittens; and Hartz Advanced Care Once-A-Month Flea and Tick Drops for Cats and Kittens.
In the short term, the agreement calls for immediate relabeling of the products. The new labeling will state that the products of concern are not to be used on the most vulnerable animals, including cats and kittens that weigh less than 6 pounds, cats older than 13 years, or kittens less than 5 months old.
Hartz will stop all new production of the cat and kitten products by September 30, 2005, and not sell or distribute any affected product after December 31, 2005. The measures announced today will help ensure pets are protected. Pet owners should pay close attention to new labels and exercise good judgment when choosing pet products.
"EPA is taking this action because there are safety concerns with these products,'' said Susan B. Hazen, principal deputy assistant administrator at EPA. "Pet owners should be alerted to these concerns, and may choose to transition to alternative products. We take seriously our obligation to ensure that pesticide products, when used as labeled, are safe."
The company agreed to a prohibition on any remaining retail sales by March 31, 2006. This orderly transition allows consumers and distributors to move to alternatives flea and tick products and will be strictly monitored. Hartz will also be notifying their distributors and retailers of the changes in order to ensure a workable phaseout.
As with any pesticide product, all label directions and precautions should be carefully followed to ensure the product is used correctly. It is prudent to follow the new restrictions for all products, including existing stocks.
After a public 30-day comment period, EPA intends to issue a cancellation order and an amended registration, which will be effective by October 31, 2005. For further information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/flea-tick-drops.htm
The United States Environmental Protection Agency today insisted that Hartz Mountain Corp. cancel uses of several flea and tick products that may be associated with a range of adverse reactions, including hair loss, salivation, tremors and numerous deaths in cats and kittens.
The common pet product brand names which are involved in this action include: Hartz Advanced Care 4 in 1 Flea & Tick Drops Plus+ for Cats and Kittens; Hartz Advanced Care Brand Flea and Tick Drops(Plus) for Cats and Kittens; Hartz Advanced Care 3 in 1 Flea & Tick Drops for Cats and Kittens; and Hartz Advanced Care Once-A-Month Flea and Tick Drops for Cats and Kittens.
In the short term, the agreement calls for immediate relabeling of the products. The new labeling will state that the products of concern are not to be used on the most vulnerable animals, including cats and kittens that weigh less than 6 pounds, cats older than 13 years, or kittens less than 5 months old.
Hartz will stop all new production of the cat and kitten products by September 30, 2005, and not sell or distribute any affected product after December 31, 2005. The measures announced today will help ensure pets are protected. Pet owners should pay close attention to new labels and exercise good judgment when choosing pet products.
"EPA is taking this action because there are safety concerns with these products,'' said Susan B. Hazen, principal deputy assistant administrator at EPA. "Pet owners should be alerted to these concerns, and may choose to transition to alternative products. We take seriously our obligation to ensure that pesticide products, when used as labeled, are safe."
The company agreed to a prohibition on any remaining retail sales by March 31, 2006. This orderly transition allows consumers and distributors to move to alternatives flea and tick products and will be strictly monitored. Hartz will also be notifying their distributors and retailers of the changes in order to ensure a workable phaseout.
As with any pesticide product, all label directions and precautions should be carefully followed to ensure the product is used correctly. It is prudent to follow the new restrictions for all products, including existing stocks.
After a public 30-day comment period, EPA intends to issue a cancellation order and an amended registration, which will be effective by October 31, 2005. For further information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/flea-tick-drops.htm
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Kitchen Aid Recalls 529,000 Coffeemakers
Whirlpool, no stranger to recalls, reported through the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission that it was recalling 529,000 coffeemakers because of a fire hazard. The company says it has already received 13 reports of fires in KitchenAid coffeemakers.
The impacted applicances can be identified by the following serial numbers located on the bottom of the unit:
KCM120OB
KCM300OB
KCM200OB
KCM400OB
KCM120WH
KCM300WH
KCM200WH
KCM400WH
KCM400ER
KCM400BU
Consumers should unplug and stop using the coffeemakers immediately and contact KitchenAid® for a free comparable coffeemaker model or an exchange for another KitchenAid® product. Consumers should not return the coffeemaker to the retailer where it was purchased.
Consumers can also contact KitchenAid® at (800) 990-6255 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, and between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET on Saturday
Whirlpool, no stranger to recalls, reported through the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission that it was recalling 529,000 coffeemakers because of a fire hazard. The company says it has already received 13 reports of fires in KitchenAid coffeemakers.
The impacted applicances can be identified by the following serial numbers located on the bottom of the unit:
KCM120OB
KCM300OB
KCM200OB
KCM400OB
KCM120WH
KCM300WH
KCM200WH
KCM400WH
KCM400ER
KCM400BU
Consumers should unplug and stop using the coffeemakers immediately and contact KitchenAid® for a free comparable coffeemaker model or an exchange for another KitchenAid® product. Consumers should not return the coffeemaker to the retailer where it was purchased.
Consumers can also contact KitchenAid® at (800) 990-6255 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, and between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET on Saturday
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
FACTA Official, More Details Below, Including FTC Links
Beginning today, a new federal rule will require businesses and individuals to take appropriate measures to dispose of sensitive information derived from consumer reports. Any business or individual who uses a consumer report for a business purpose is subject to the requirements of the Disposal Rule, a part of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA), which calls for the proper disposal of information in consumer reports and records to protect against “unauthorized access to or use of the information.”
The standard for the proper disposal of information derived from a consumer report is flexible, and allows the organizations and individuals covered by the Rule to determine what measures are reasonable based on the sensitivity of the information, the costs and benefits of different disposal methods, and changes in technology. Although the Disposal Rule applies to consumer reports and the information derived from consumer reports, the FTC encourages those who dispose of any records containing a consumer’s personal or financial information to take similar protective measures.
The Rule applies to people and both large and small organizations that use consumer reports, including: consumer reporting companies; lenders; insurers; employers; landlords; government agencies; mortgage brokers, car dealers; attorneys; private investigators; debt collectors; individuals who pull consumer reports on prospective home employees, such as nannies or contractors; and entities that maintain information in consumer reports as part of their role as a service provider to other organizations covered by the Rule. The Disposal Rule applies to consumer reports or information derived from consumer reports. The Fair Credit Reporting Act defines the term consumer report to include information obtained from a consumer reporting company that is used – or expected to be used – in establishing a consumer’s eligibility for credit, employment, or insurance, among other purposes. Examples of consumer reports include credit reports, credit scores, reports businesses or individuals receive with information relating to employment background, check writing history, insurance claims, residential or tenant history, or medical history.The Rule requires disposal practices that are reasonable and appropriate to prevent the unauthorized access to – or use of – information in a consumer report. For example, reasonable measures for disposing of consumer report information could include establishing and complying with policies to: burn, pulverize, or shred papers containing consumer report information so that the information cannot be read or reconstructed; destroy or erase electronic files or media containing consumer report information so that the information cannot be read or reconstructed; or conduct due diligence and hire a document destruction contractor to dispose of material specifically identified as consumer report information consistent with the Rule. Due diligence could include: reviewing an independent audit of a disposal company’s operations and/or its compliance with the Rule; obtaining information about the disposal company from several references; requiring that the disposal company be certified by a recognized trade association; or reviewing and evaluating the disposal company’s information security policies or procedures.
Financial institutions that are subject to both the Disposal Rule and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Safeguards Rule, which requires institutions to take steps to protect sensitive customer information, should incorporate practices dealing with the proper disposal of consumer information into the information security program that the Safeguards Rule requires.
Information is available at www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/safeguards.html.
FACTA directed the FTC, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt comparable and consistent rules regarding the disposal of sensitive consumer report information. The FTC’s Disposal Rule became effective June 1, 2005. It was published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2004 [69 Fed Reg 68690], and is available at www.ftc.gov/os/2004/11/041118disposalfrn.pdf.
The FTC has issued a new publication, “New Rule Seeks to Protect Privacy by Requiring Proper Disposal of Sensitive Consumer Information,” available at www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/disposalalrt.htm, to educate businesses about the new requirements.
Beginning today, a new federal rule will require businesses and individuals to take appropriate measures to dispose of sensitive information derived from consumer reports. Any business or individual who uses a consumer report for a business purpose is subject to the requirements of the Disposal Rule, a part of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA), which calls for the proper disposal of information in consumer reports and records to protect against “unauthorized access to or use of the information.”
The standard for the proper disposal of information derived from a consumer report is flexible, and allows the organizations and individuals covered by the Rule to determine what measures are reasonable based on the sensitivity of the information, the costs and benefits of different disposal methods, and changes in technology. Although the Disposal Rule applies to consumer reports and the information derived from consumer reports, the FTC encourages those who dispose of any records containing a consumer’s personal or financial information to take similar protective measures.
The Rule applies to people and both large and small organizations that use consumer reports, including: consumer reporting companies; lenders; insurers; employers; landlords; government agencies; mortgage brokers, car dealers; attorneys; private investigators; debt collectors; individuals who pull consumer reports on prospective home employees, such as nannies or contractors; and entities that maintain information in consumer reports as part of their role as a service provider to other organizations covered by the Rule. The Disposal Rule applies to consumer reports or information derived from consumer reports. The Fair Credit Reporting Act defines the term consumer report to include information obtained from a consumer reporting company that is used – or expected to be used – in establishing a consumer’s eligibility for credit, employment, or insurance, among other purposes. Examples of consumer reports include credit reports, credit scores, reports businesses or individuals receive with information relating to employment background, check writing history, insurance claims, residential or tenant history, or medical history.The Rule requires disposal practices that are reasonable and appropriate to prevent the unauthorized access to – or use of – information in a consumer report. For example, reasonable measures for disposing of consumer report information could include establishing and complying with policies to: burn, pulverize, or shred papers containing consumer report information so that the information cannot be read or reconstructed; destroy or erase electronic files or media containing consumer report information so that the information cannot be read or reconstructed; or conduct due diligence and hire a document destruction contractor to dispose of material specifically identified as consumer report information consistent with the Rule. Due diligence could include: reviewing an independent audit of a disposal company’s operations and/or its compliance with the Rule; obtaining information about the disposal company from several references; requiring that the disposal company be certified by a recognized trade association; or reviewing and evaluating the disposal company’s information security policies or procedures.
Financial institutions that are subject to both the Disposal Rule and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Safeguards Rule, which requires institutions to take steps to protect sensitive customer information, should incorporate practices dealing with the proper disposal of consumer information into the information security program that the Safeguards Rule requires.
Information is available at www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/safeguards.html.
FACTA directed the FTC, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt comparable and consistent rules regarding the disposal of sensitive consumer report information. The FTC’s Disposal Rule became effective June 1, 2005. It was published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2004 [69 Fed Reg 68690], and is available at www.ftc.gov/os/2004/11/041118disposalfrn.pdf.
The FTC has issued a new publication, “New Rule Seeks to Protect Privacy by Requiring Proper Disposal of Sensitive Consumer Information,” available at www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/disposalalrt.htm, to educate businesses about the new requirements.
