Cops handcuff, interrogate 7-year-old over missing $5

 

Police in New York City are facing a $250 million lawsuit from a family who says police handcuffed and interrogated their 7-year-old son over $5 that went missing on the playground. The family of Wilson Reyes says their son was first handcuffed and held in a room at his school for four hours before being taken to a local precinct. There, they claim he was handcuffed to a pipe and questioned for another six hours. The money, intended for a school trip, reportedly fell to the ground in front of Reyes, and another boy allegedly picked it up. The city disputes the family's account of how long Reyes was held, saying standard procedure for a juvenile-robbery investigation was followed.

http://wwwmsnNow.com

Odd the police will take action against a 7 year old and a missing $5.00 bill, but not if your cell phone or computer is stolen.

1/26/2013 msn.com

Herb Weisbaum, NBC News contributor

Attention shoppers: Another credit card fee is here

Yera Dominguez charges the credit card of Reynaldo Rodriguez as he pays for items at Lorenzo's Italian Market in Miami in this file photo. Starting Sunday, merchants who accept Visa and MasterCard will be allowed to tack on surcharges to purchase prices.

It could soon cost you more to shop with a credit card at some stores. As of this Sunday, Jan. 27, merchants who accept credit cards issued by Visa and MasterCard will be allowed to add a service charge to the purchase price.

Visa and MasterCard had always prohibited merchants from doing this. They agreed to change the rules and allow the surcharge as part of the settlement of an antitrust suit brought by retailers.

The surcharge is supposed to equal the actual cost of processing the credit card transaction, which is typically 1.5 to 3 percent. Under the agreement, the fee is capped at 4 percent. The surcharge can vary based on the type of card. For example, it could be higher for a rewards card or premier card.

Merchants still cannot add a surcharge to debit card transactions.

The big question is: Will any stores do this? Should you worry about paying a credit card surcharge?

“We have discussed the settlement with many, many merchants, and not a single merchant we have spoken to plans to surcharge,” Craig Shearman, spokesman for the National Retail Federation (NRF), said in a statement. The NRF was not involved in the class action lawsuit.

NBC News contacted some of the country’s largest retailers. Wal-Mart, Target, Sears and Home Depot said they have no plans to add a credit card surcharge.

Credit card surcharges are banned by law in 10 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma and Texas.

Visa and MasterCard have rules that require retailers to handle credit cards the same way in all of their stores across the country. That means a chain with stores in any of the 10 states where a surcharge is banned would not be able to have a surcharge at any of its stores.

The National Retail Federation points out that under terms of the settlement, a merchant who adds a surcharge to purchases on a Visa or MasterCard would have to do the same with American Express cards. But AMEX prohibits surcharge fees. So a merchant who accepts American Express as well as Visa/MasterCard would not be able to surcharge any of those cards.

“The bottom line is that very few retailers would be able to surcharge under the settlement, and that the vast majority don’t want to surcharge even if they could,” the NRF’s Shearman said.

Ed Mierzwinski, Director of Consumer Programs at U.S. PIRG agrees.

“In the brick-and-mortar world, no one who does any sort of volume business is going to want to surcharge because it will drive their customer crazy and slow down transactions,” Mierzwinski said.

In fact, most consumer advocates believe that except for some small retailers, a credit card surcharge is a non-issue in the short-term.

But Edgar Dworsky, founder of ConsumerWorld.org, worries that over time surcharges will gain traction.

”It’s predictable what’s going to happen,” he said. “We’re at the top of the hill and we’re going to start going down that slippery slope.”

Dworsky points out that stores factor in the cost of processing credit cards when they price their merchandise. Charging for that again, he said, would be double-dipping, unless stores rolled back their prices – which no one expects them to do.

“We shouldn’t have gotten to the point, but unfortunately because of the court settlement we have,” Dworsky told me. “There’s no one standing up for consumers and saying that this is really bad.”

Dworsky points to Australia, where surcharging credit card use began in 2003. At first, few merchants charged the fee. His research shows that approximately one-third of the sellers there – including some hotels, supermarkets, department stores and utilities – now charge extra to use a credit card.

What about disclosures?

The advocacy group Consumer Action has published a booklet on credit card checkout fees. It warns shoppers to be on the lookout for these fees and advises them to express their dissatisfaction.“Customers shouldn’t stand for it,” said Ruth Susswein Consumer Action’s deputy director of national priorities. “Our advice is to tell them you don’t like the fee and this makes you want to take your business elsewhere.”

The new rules from Visa and MasterCard require retailers who apply a credit card surcharge to post a notice at the store’s entrance. The exact percentage of the surcharge does not need to be disclosed until the point of sale. The customer receipt must list the amount of the surcharge.

Online stores with a surcharge will not be required to have a notice on the home page. They only need to alert shoppers about this when they reach the page where credit cards are first mentioned. In most cases, that means the final step of checkout when the purchase is being completed.

Not the end of this story

The settlement that allows merchants to impose a surcharge is only preliminary. The court has yet to issue its final ruling in this case. That’s expected later this year.

Once that happens, various retailers and business groups plan to challenge the settlement. That could drag into late 2014.

For now, the possibility that the settlement could be modified will probably keep most businesses of any size from instituting credit card fees.

“We’re not convinced this is going to be an issue,” Consumer Action’s Susswein told me. “They may never do it, but as individual consumers we need to be aware.”Herb Weisbaum is The ConsumerMan. Follow him on Facebook and Twitteror visit The ConsumerMan website.

NBCNews.com

Herb Weisbaum, NBC News contributor

When you hit Del...where does your data go?  View the video, you may be surprised to learn it's still there.

Michael Gowan, TechNewsDaily contributor , TechNewsDaily

Unlocking cellphones becomes illegal Saturday

The clock to unlock a new mobile phone is running out.

In October 2012, the Librarian of Congress, who determines exemptions to a strict anti-hacking law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), decided that unlocking mobile phones would no longer be allowed. But the librarian provided a 90-day window during which people could still buy a phone and unlock it. That window closes on Jan. 26.

Unlocking a phone frees it from restrictions that keep the device from working on more than one carrier's network, allowing it run on other networks that use the same wireless standard. This can be useful to international travelers who need their phones to work on different networks. Other people just like the freedom of being able to switch carriers as they please.

The new rule against unlocking phones won't be a problem for everybody, though. For example, Verizon's iPhone 5 comes out of the box already unlocked, and AT&T will unlock a phone once it is out of contract.

You can also pay full-price for a phone, not the discounted price that comes with a two-year service contract, to receive the device unlocked from the get-go. Apple sells an unlocked iPhone 5 starting at $649, and Google sells its Nexus 4 unlocked for $300. [See also: Can I Get a Smartphone Without a Contract?]

Advocacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) questions whether the DMCA has the right to determine who can unlock a phone. In an email to TechNewsDaily, EFF attorney Mitch Stoltz said, "Arguably, locking phone users into one carrier is not at all what the DMCA was meant to do. It's up to the courts to decide."

If you do buy a new phone and want to unlock it before the deadline, you must first ask your carrier if the company will unlock your phone for you. The DMCA only permits you to unlock your phone yourself once you've asked your carrier first.

(Note that unlocking is different from "jailbreaking," which opens the phone up for running additional software and remains legal, although it can be risky, for smartphones.)

Christopher S. Reed from the U.S. Copyright Office noted in an email to TechNewsDaily that "only a consumer, who is also the owner of the copy of software on the handset under the law, may unlock the handset."

But come Saturday, you'll have to break the law to unlock your phone. If you want to get in under the gun, you can search the Internet for the code to enter to unlock the phone or find a tool that will help you accomplish the task.

The change could crimp the style of carriers like T-Mobile, which have pushed "bring your own device" as an incentive for switching service providers. Such carriers promise savings in exchange for using your existing phone on their network.

T-Mobile has promoted this notion for iPhones, in particular, since the company is the only one of the big four U.S. carriers that doesn't sell the iPhone (although it will, in the months ahead). The carrier goes so far as to feature ads displaying an open padlock, with an iPhone replacing the body of the lock. T-Mobile declined to comment.

Rossen Reports: Webcam hackers can spy on you in secret

View the video link below

 

http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2013/01/24/16641666-rossen-reports-webcam-hackers-can-spy-on-you-in-secret?lite

Authorities are saying criminals can now hack into your webcam remotely, using it to watch your most intimate moments without you ever knowing. NBC's Jeff Rossen investigates how you can protect yourself and your family.

 By Jeff Rossen, Josh Davis and Robert Powell, TODAY

Could predators be spying on you and your kids through your computer's webcam? Authorities say criminals are now able to hack in and watch your every move -- without you ever knowing it.

We all do it: We use our computer, then we get distracted with something and just walk away. You forget the computer is still on. and the criminals are counting on it. Now they can access your webcam remotely, watching your most intimate moments from the kitchen to the privacy of your own bedroom. The worst part is, you'd never even know.

Computer expert Jim Stickley of TraceSecurity showed us how easy it is. From thousands of miles away he broke into one family's laptop and turned on their webcam to view teen girls in their bedroom and in their dining room as the family ate dinner. "It took about three minutes" to hack into their system, Stickley told us.

Stickley said such families are easy targets for webcam predators -- criminals like Luis Mijangos. Prosecutors say he was spying on more than 200 women through their webcams, even blackmailing some of them. He's now serving six years in prison.

Rossen Reports: TV and furniture tipovers threaten kids

"People who are victims generally have no idea that they are victims," Stickley said.

"And suddenly, someone has naked photos of you?  Or something else?" we asked.

"Suddenly you're all over the Internet," Stickley said.

So we set up an experiment using the Siegel family of New Jersey. With dad Robert's permission, we had our expert hack into their computer. How'd he do it? He sent them an innocent-looking e-card with a virus.

Rossen Reports: New device lets crooks crack many hotel locks

"They click the little link in the card and as far as they're concerned, they're going to see little quacking ducks," Stickley explained. "In reality, I've also loaded a Trojan (horse) on their computer during that time."

We told Corinne Siegel and the Siegel daughters, Chloe and Cassidy, that we were doing a general story about online security. They had no idea we were spying on them through their computer webcam. We told the girls to go upstairs. Then we let their mom in on the secret: "We actually recorded your family dinner, no one was in your house except you guys."

"It's really creepy," Corinne said. "It's absolutely creepy....my girls are in their bedroom all the time.  I'm frightened for them."

Rossen Reports: Extreme identity thieves live as you

So we took it up a notch, having our expert hack into the webcam in her daughter's upstairs bedroom, where they were waiting with our producer. Imagine if it had been a predator spying on your kids.

"I'm sick over it, actually," Corinne said as we watched. "I really am. It's upsetting to see this."

Then we gave the girls a wakeup call. "It's scary," Chloe said when we explained our experiment.

Read more investigative journalism from Rossen Reports

"Someone could potentially be watching you, and this is where you feel most comfortable," Cassidy agreed.

"I thought I was so safe the whole time, but clearly not," Chloe said.

So how can you protect yourself? Number one: Leave your laptop closed when you're not using it. You can also put a piece of tape across the webcam lens.

Secondly, don't open any emails from people you don't know. That includes clicking on those Facebook postings that say things like "Watch this incredible video!" Unless you trust the person posting, don't do it. Those random links are how the hackers gain access.

The FBI says it's impossible to know how often hackers are spying on innocent victims. But keep in mind: one guy, like Luis Mijangos, often has hundreds of women he's watching at any time..

 

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)



PayPal's overzealous fraud filters have frustrated customers for years, with an inscrutable verification process that leaves some battling for months to get access to their money.

The eBay (EBAY, Fortune 500)-owned payments processor, like other financial companies, has policies in place to ensure that fraudsters aren't using its system to transfer ill-gotten gains. But PayPal also traps legitimate businesses and charities in its filters, and proving you're no scam involves a ton of paperwork and time.

PayPal says it's finally ready to deal with the problem. It's promising to roll out a massive overhaul of its system within the next several months -- but details are scant for now.

"These are not minor -- these are aggressive changes," said Anuj Nayar, PayPal's senior director of communications. "This is a fundamental shift in our business operations."

Nayar said he can't go into specifics about what will change, but transparency is a major focus. "We want to be clear about how people can get out of the [frozen funds] situation," he said. "We need to get better about helping people, or explaining why actions are being taken."

PayPal customers have complained for years about the Kafkaesque nightmare of trying to pry frozen funds loose.

The company routinely freezes funds for 21 days if it thinks there's a fraud risk, and its terms give it the right to extend the freeze for up to 180 days. To get access to their money, users are often asked asked to provide the kind of documentation that a product seller would have, like several months' worth of sales records. But if you're running a fundraiser or selling tickets to an upcoming conference, you don't have that paperwork.

Even for those with extensive paper trails, the appeals process can take months to resolve. The Web is filled with enraged blog posts, websites like paypalsucks.com, and a Tumblr called "Conferences Burned by PayPal."

Nayar first discussed PayPal's plan for "big changes" in a TechCrunch article posted last week, after science fiction author Jay Lake found his account frozen. Lake, who is battling advanced colon cancer, is raising money for an experimental genome-sequencing process.

Thanks to his own fame and the aid of friends like Neil Gaiman, Lake's fundraising effort went viral. Just five hours after launching his campaign, he had $20,000 in contributions. At about 4 p.m. Pacific time the next day -- January 11, a Friday -- Lake tried to transfer the funds into a bank account. Instead, he received an alert that his PayPal account was frozen.

"They wanted me to provide receipts, shipping information, business paperwork," Lake told CNNMoney. "That obviously didn't apply to me, but there was no way to bypass the process. I called, and they said appeals take 24 to 72 hours to get going. I asked, 'How I do prove I'm not conducting transactions?'"

After Lake fired off a sarcastic tweet at PayPal, his fans and famous friends lobbied for help. His account was restored by 6 p.m., and PayPal tossed in a corporate donation to Lake's fund.

"If it weren't for my small bit of fame, if I were the guy down the street, this could have taken months," Lake said.

That's what happened to Brook Drumm, an entrepreneur who sells 3-D printers. After running a successful Kickstarter campaign, he launched an online store to sell his Printrbot machines. More than $100,000 rolled in.


"PayPal freaked out and froze our funds," Drumm said. "They needed references and bank statements and tax records. This went on for months. And even with all that paperwork, they still ended up holding $50,000. We finally got the money, but it was an untold amount of stress and sleepless nights."

Nayar, the PayPal rep, said the company can't comment on specific cases.

"We've made a commitment to be clearer with consumers on how they can get out of these situations," he said.

For example, the issue that Jay Lake faced -- being asked to mail in receipts and other paperwork that doesn't apply to fundraisers?

"We're fixing a lot of that," Nayar said. "At a minimum, the fact that someone needs to mail in something to an online payments company is a problem. 2013 is going to be the year that we fix a lot of those pain points."

It will take time, he cautioned. PayPal has multiple, complex security systems in place, and all of them need a fresh look. Ironically, Lake understands better than most what PayPal is up against. As a sideline to his writing, Lake consults with financial institutions about their communications systems -- for example, the automated calls you receive when your credit card may be compromised. He's familiar with the fraud protection process, and he thinks PayPal's has plenty of room for improvement.

"There's a guilty until proven innocent bias to it, and that needs to change," he said.
PayPal can't afford to be complacent much longer. The field that it once monopolized is now full of competition: WePay, Square, Stripe and smartphone-based systems like Google Wallet are only a few of the up-and-coming rivals.

"We are committed to getting back to being the center of our customers' financial lives," PayPal's Nayar pledged. "Big changes are coming."

First Published: January 21, 2013: 6:44 AM ET

PayPal admits its fraud filters suck, promises to suck less

PayPal customers, breathe a sigh of relief. Soon, you will no longer have to undergo an agonizing process to thaw your frozen funds from their overly suspicious coffers. The payments processing company announced recently that it would make "aggressive changes" in the coming months to overhaul its fraud filters and verification process, a system that is currently about as easy to navigate as a zigzagging maze. Customers for years have railed against the difficulty in getting their funds unfrozen, an unfriendly process that required so much documentation and hoop-jumping that numerous blogs and websites were dedicated to the theme of "PayPal sucks."

Click to see more on msnNOW.com, updated 24 hours a day.