Facebook, WhatsApp Acquisition Face Privacy Hurdle After EPIC Files FTC Complaint

Mergers and acquisitions routinely face opposition and complaints. Facebook’s $19 billion deal to buy messaging system WhatsApp has been able to stay rather unopposed, until now.

Information privacy nonprofit groups, Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy, are asking the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and block the mega-acquisition citing concerns with the two companies’ privacy policies.

EPIC and the CDD filed a complaint [PDF] with the FTC alleging that WhatsApp has made data-privacy promises to its 450 million users that will likely be unsupported, if not impossible, after the acquisition is complete.

By failing to make special provisions to protect user data in the event of an acquisition, WhatsApp “unreasonably creates or takes advantage of an obstacle to the free exercise of consumer decision making.

Specifically, WhatsApp users could not reasonably have anticipated that by selecting a pro-privacy messaging service, they would subject their data to Facebook’s data collection practices.

The complaint asks regulators to put the acquisition on hold and investigate whether the acquisition violates the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive trade practices including companies that don’t follow published privacy policies.

In the event that the deal goes through, EPIC asks the FTC to put a provision in place that would isolate WhatsApp users’ information from being accessed by Facebook’s data collection process.

EPIC complaint to the FTC

WhatsApp has staked its reputation on its stringent privacy policy. The company has made guarantees to users that it keeps a reasonable distance from consumer’s data. According to WhatsApps privacy policy, the company does not store messages, phone numbers, email addresses, or names from a device’s contacts.

It’s those privacy guarantees that EPIC is concerned will all but disappear once Facebook takes over; even though WhatsApp officials reassured users there would not be a privacy change associated with the acquisition.

In a blog post shortly after the deal was announced, WhatsApp founder Jan Koum wrote that the messaging system would remain “autonomous and operate independently” of Facebook.

The complaint is partially based on the fact that Facebook has regularly incorporated data from companies it has required.

Facebook has drawn numerous complaints for using consumers’ private data without their consent. Complaints have included posting users’ activity to third-party sites, placing user photos and names with ads, and the use of facial recognition, ArsTechnica reports.

The complaint states that the acquisition is also a possible violation of Facebook’s commitment to give users notice of privacy changes and to get their consent.

EPIC contends that WhatsApp gives Facebook a new set of data that could be used to add to its own database, but that neither company has notified users.

This isn’t the first complaint EPIC has filed with the FTC concerning privacy issues associated with privacy concerns.

“The Federal Trade Commission has previously responded favorably to EPIC complaints concerning Google Buzz, Microsoft Passport, Changes in Facebook Privacy Settings, and Choicepoint security practices,” EPIC officials said in a statement.

The FTC did approve Google’s acquisition of Doubleclick despite objections by EPIC.

The acquisition of WhatsApp came as quite a surprise when it was announced in February.

The mega-deal puts WhatsApp ahead of many major companies when it comes to estimated value, Consumerist reported last month.

Although the messaging company has maintained nothing will change, it has already announced a move to add a voice communication service.

Facebook’s shot at WhatsApp data gets both companies an FTC complaint [ArsTechnica]

Epic Urges FTC Investigation of WhatsApp Sale to Facebook [EPIC]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

40 herramientas para crear animaciones y comics

via Educación tecnológica http://ift.tt/P93Dms www.bscformacion.com

An Imagined Dialogue Inspired By Video Of Two Bumbling Would-Be Burger King Burglars

As long as there are fast food restaurants, there will be attempted burglaries. And because not all crimes happen when there are people around, we’re especially thankful to the Philadelphia Burger King that caught two bumbling buddies who forced their way inside in the wee hours of the morning and proceed to generally be incompetent.

Police are looking for the two suspects featured in the security footage (H/T to Deadspin) for breaking in and damaging a cash register monitor. They didn’t take anything else or cause much damage besides that, unless you count roughing up hamburger buns a crime.

The bad part about surveillance videos? There often isn’t any sound, which is why I’ve taken it upon myself to provide a potential script for the conversation that may have ensued between these two clumsy pals. Feel free to follow along as you watch the video.

THE SCENE: Burger King, 2:50 a.m.

CAST: Hat Guy and Patch Jacket

Hat Guy: Open, Sesame! (throws doors open)

Patch Jacket: This place looks different at night.

HG: Weee, watch me slide gracefully over this counter (belly flops). This cash register monitor looked at me funny (pushes it off the counter). Ha, got ya.

PJ: Wait why did you — oh well, that sliding thing looked fun (slides over after his friend who has disappeared into the back)

HG: COME IN THE BACK I AM LOOKING FOR FRIES!!!

(Walking around, pointing at an ordinary restaurant kitchen) Look at all this restaurant stuff! I can count everything in here and point at it!

PJ: Wait for me, hang on –

HG: HAMBURGER BUNS! I LOVE HAMBURGER BUNS I WANT THEM! (starts grabbing at bag of hamburger buns like he’s been wandering a foodless dessert for days)

PJ: No no no, those aren’t your hamburger buns. Come here, shhh, let me hug you from behind and soothe you like you’re a startled newborn pony.

HG: But… I want the hamburger buns.

PJ: Okay you hang on to that one and we’re going to walk out together still entwined (bear hug walkout)

HG: (Resisting) But… buns.

PJ steers his pal back out to the front to once more cross the silver barrier.

HG: Stupid stuff under the counter, YOU ARE NOW OVER THE COUNTER! TAKE THAT! (throws stuff)

PJ: Haha, yeah you really showed that stuff, now let’s get you over this thing as gracefully as before, okay? You can do this.

HG: I can do this! (Slowly slides over on his belly) And I’m taking this thing from the counter, whatever it is.

(walks through the doors triumphantly in front of his friend) I showed those buns what for, didn’t I?

PJ: Sure, sure you did, lil buddy.

They walk off into the night, secure in their friendship and counter sliding skills.

END SCENE

You can follow MBQ on Twitter but know that she’s not accepting any playwriting commissions as of yet: @marybethquirk

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Albertsons Owner Will Pay $9B To Walk Down The Aisle With Safeway

(SchuminWeb)

Prepare for the “save the date”, because there’s another marriage on the way. This time between the second- and fifth-largest grocers in the United States.

Cerberus Capital Management, owner of No. 5 grocer Albertsons, has agreed to buy No. 2 grocer Safeway in a deal valued over $9 billion, Forbes reports.

Officials with Safeway say the potential union will allow the grocer to continue improving customers’ shopping experience.

“Safeway has been focused on better meeting shoppers’ diverse needs through local, relevant assortment, an improved price/value proposition and a great shopping experience that has driven improved sales trends,” Safeway CEO Robert Edwards said in a statement. “We are excited about continuing this momentum as a combined organization.”

For their part officials with Albertsons say the merger will create opportunities for the stores to offer a cutting-edge shopping experience for customers.

“This transaction offers us the opportunity to better serve customers by adapting more quickly to evolving shopping preferences in diverse regions across the country,” Bob Miller, CEO of Albertsons, tells Forbes. “Together, we will be able to respond to local needs more quickly and deliver outstanding products at the lowest possible price, more efficiently than ever before.”

But don’t pop that champagne just yet. There seems to be another suitor waiting in the wings.

Kroger, the country’s largest grocer, is reportedly considering making its own offer for Safeway. Last year, Kroger outbid Cerberus to buy the Harris Teeter chain of supermarkets for $2.4 billion.

Ceberus Buys Safeway, Merges Albertsons For Over $9 Billion [Forbes]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Colorado’s “Drive High, Get A DUI” Campaign: Because Having The Munchies Is Distracting

Car? What’s a car, anyway, but a thing with wheels?

Just like Colorado doesn’t want drunk drivers swerving all over its roads and endangering people, the state doesn’t want anyone getting stoned and trying to operate a car, now that marijuana is legal in the state. Because if what we’ve learned from the movies about reefer is true, there are plenty of distractions when you’re stoned — food (Funyuns specifically), the way Willie Nelson’s braids sway just so and oh what’s that thing I must stare at over there?

While you probably have that one friend who insists, “No, it’s fine — I’m way more focused on the road when I’m stoned!”, Colorado disagrees: The state is spending $1 million on TV ads for the Colorado Department of Transportation’s new “Drive High, Get a DUI” campaign that make fun of pot users who already space out under normal circumstances.

The point there being that driving a potentially deadly hunk of metal around other people could be a really bad time to space out. For example — one ad shoes a guy (with huuuuge hair, because obviously the more cartoonish of a character, the better comedic value!) trying to operate a grill while high and not realizing what the problem is, because he’s stoned. The idea being, you wouldn’t want him driving a car if he can’t turn a grill on.

It’s the first time since marijuana was legalized in 2012 that Colorado has pushed such a campaign to remind drivers to treat marijuana like alcohol, reports the Associated Press. The state has also recently started tallying impaired driving violations due to marijuana, while in previous years those just fell under the same category as drunk drivers.

And also? The ads are actually pretty funny:

You can follow MBQ on Twitter if you can find her oh wait, here: @marybethquirk

Colorado launches campaign to stop stoned driving [Associated Press]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

Here are ten of the best photos that readers added to the Consumerist Flickr Pool in the last week, picked for usability in a Consumerist post or for just plain neatness.

(Joel Zimmer)

(Karen_Chappell)

(afagen)

(RiddimRyder)

(MGChan)

(Great Beyond)

(t55z)

(hima4ever)

(Photo“>Habib Q)

(Joel Zimmer)

Our Flickr Pool is the place where Consumerist readers upload photos for possible use in future Consumerist posts. Want to see your pictures on our site? Just be a registered Flickr user, go here, and click “Join Group?” up on the top right. Choose your best photos, then click “send to group” on the individual images you want to add to the pool.

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Will Amazon Get Those Drones After All? Judge Dismisses FAA Fine For Commercial Drone User

(cag2012)

Chin up, Amazon! Turn that frown upside down, local brewery sending beer through the air! Delivery by commercial drone might still be possible, despite the Federal Aviation Administration going around putting the kibosh on the unmanned aerial vehicles. A federal judge has dismissed the FAA’s only fine against a commercial drone user.

The National Transportation Safety Board administration law judge found that a man shouldn’t have been fined $10,000 by the FAA, as his drone was no different than a model aircraft, reports the Associated Press.

He said in dismissing the fine that the FAA doesn’t have any regulations that govern model aircraft flights or any that classify model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft.

It’s not like we’ll be seeing swarms of Amazon drones filling the skies with their deliveries just yet, as the FAA said it’s reviewing the decision, which it could appeal to the safety board.

The FAA issued the fine against an aerial photographer who flew a small drone near the University of Virginia (the alma mater of 1/6 of Consumerist [not me]) while he was making a commercial video in October 2011. The man then appealed that fine.

The FAA says it has the power to regulate access to the national airspace, which means it should be able to ban drone flights because they go through that airspace.

“There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations,” the agency says on its website. “Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft —manned or unmanned —in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.”

It’s not like the FAA doesn’t want drone deliveries, it’s just taking its own sweet time to work on regulations that would allow them without endangering manned aircraft or the general public. Congress passed a law in 2012 that told the FAA to get things ready for drones of all sizes by September 2015, but apparently it’s a little bit behind.

Regulations that would allow drones that weigh less than 55 pounds have been delayed and won’t be proposed until November, probably, starting a process that will take months or years to become final.

While companies like Amazon and UPS are churning with plans for small drones, the FAA had maintained that a model aircraft is different from a small drone because of the intent with which it’s used — model aircrafts are just for a fun day out in the park with your kids, while a small drone is a flying thing used for commercial purposes.

It’ll be interesting to see now how many “model aircrafts” begin turning toward commercial purposes in light of the judge’s ruling.

You can follow MBQ on Twitter if you like Fridays because she does, too: @marybethquirk

Judge dismisses FAA fine against small drone user [Associated Press]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

3 Reasons Newsweek’s Bitcoin Cover Story Was A Pointless Endeavor

As you probably know by now, Newsweek claims to have found the true identity of shrouded-in-mystery Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto… a 64-year-old California man who was born with the name of Satoshi Nakamoto. The story has outraged many for not only outing the man (who denies having anything to do with Bitcoin) but for publishing personal details about him and his family that are utterly irrelevant to the story of the creation of the digital currency. The bigger question is whether the story should have been published in the first place.

I’d contend that for all the research and reporting done by writer Leah McGrath Goodman, her story does nothing to shed a light on the actual creation of Bitcoin.

CREATION MYTHS

Goodman interviewed numerous people for her story, but every statement given about Nakamoto’s reasons for developing Bitcoin are mere supposition.

“I got the impression that Satoshi was really doing it for political reasons,” says Bitcoin Chief Scientist Gary Andresen, one of the few people in the article who has actually communicated with the actual creator of Bitcoin, none of whom confirm that the Satoshi Nakamoto tracked down by Goodman is that same person.

The other quotes intended to shed any light on why Nakamoto may have developed the currency come from family members of the California man.

“I could see my dad doing something brilliant and not accepting the greater effect of it,” says his daughter, whose full name, location and place of work are given in the story, but who fully admits that she doesn’t know if her dad created Bitcoin.

If someone told me my late father had invented the VCR [he didn't], I would tell you something like “That makes sense; he liked watching TV on his own schedule,” but that doesn’t make it so or provide any actual insight to the creation process.

SNOOPING FOR SNOOPING’S SAKE

If the point of the story wasn’t to shed a light on how or why Bitcoin came into being, then it seems to me that the goal was merely to solve a mystery that didn’t need solving.

Whether or not the man Goodman tracked down is the real Satoshi Nakamoto, the fact is that he’s not a criminal, not a public person. Hell, he’s not even exceedingly wealthy.

Forbes’ most recent roundup of the world’s billionaires lists 1,565 different people with at least $1 billion to their names. The lowest-ranked people in that group have more than double what Nakamoto has earned from Bitcoin.

Nakamoto has no control over Bitcoin or the funds of any Bitcoin users. He has not worked on the project (at least not openly) in years. The only reason this story exists is because he created something that became popular and dared to not give a damn about taking public credit for it.

You can’t even draw comparisons to publicity-shunners like Harper Lee, Terrence Mallick, or J.D. Salinger. These are all artists who, whether they ever intended to become famous or not, entered into fields that makes celebrities about of those who succeed.

Some defenders of the Newsweek piece point to media coverage of tech billionaires like Bill Gates and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg as precedence for this kind of story on the Bitcoin creator. But Gates and Zuck are not only people who have made themselves the faces of their respective companies; they also remained involved with the operation of their creations. Meanwhile, Satoshi Nakamoto hasn’t had anything to do with Bitcoin in quite some time.

Why not a national magazine cover story on the creator of Photoshop? It has revolutionized multiple industries and changed the way humans view the world and communicate about it and has made Adobe a fortune much larger than the few hundred million stashed on Nakamoto’s hard drive.

TOO MUCH INFORMATION

Goodman defends her inclusion of details that have absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin — Nakamoto’s location, the names and locations of his family members, his recent health issues — by saying they “offer a sense of his humanity.”

What does that have anything to do with reporting about the creation of Bitcoin?

An example: Because of where I live and the friends I have, I (and a lot of other people in Philadelphia) happen to know where Comcast CEO Brian Roberts eats breakfast every morning. I’ve also been told what he eats, though I honesty don’t care.

But do I include this in any of the numerous stories about Comcast? No, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the goings-on at the nation’s largest cable company. Similarly, while Roberts’ home address and license plate number may be available to those who know where to look, including that sort of data is is just showy, and serves no real informative purpose.

And remember that in this example, I’m talking about the billionaire head of a mammoth media and cable company, a man who is friendly with world leaders. If I wouldn’t include this information in a story about him, I certainly wouldn’t do so in a piece about the engineer who invented the first set-top receiver.

SO WHAT DO WE KNOW?

We know that a Newsweek reporter has a good deal of evidence that seems to point to this man in California as the likely creator of Bitcoin.

We know that he’s denying the claims made in that story.

We also know where this man — whether he is the Satoshi Nakamoto or not — went to school, where he worked, and what his siblings, spouse’s, and kids names are (and where some of them live and work).

But even if everything in the Newsweek story turns out to be true, when it comes to the actual origin story of Bitcoin, we know as much today as we did three days ago.

Further reading, including some differing opinions:

Redditors furious Newsweek ‘doxxed’ Bitcoin founder [Poynter]

The Outing of Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Is Important Journalism [Forbes]

Of Bitcoin and doxxing: Is revealing Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity okay because it was Newsweek and not Reddit? [GigaOm]

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Pfizer Recalls Antidepressant Effexor Because It Is Not A Heart Medicine

Pfizer says there is a very slim chance that some Effexor bottles may contain stray Tykosin capsules.

Two lots of Pfizer’s Effexor antidepressant and one lot of its generic form, Venlafaxine, have been recalled by Pfizer after a pharmacist discovered a different medicine inside one large bottle of the drug.

According to the recall notice, a pharmacist recently reported finding a capsule of Tikosyn inside one container of Effexor XR capsules. Tikosyn, also produced by Pfizer, is an antiarrhythmic agent given to cardiac patients with abnormal heart rhythms.

Accidental use of Tikosyn could result in serious adverse health consequences that could be fatal, says the FDA.

Pfizer says it knows of no other instances of Tikosyn being found mixed in with Effexor or Venlafaxine capsules, and believes the odds of a consumer unintentionally receiving a Tikosyn in with their other meds is unlikely. However, it is recalling these lots out of caution.

The FDA is asking pharmacists to immediately quarantine and return all recalled lots, as well as notify any customers to whom they distributed the recalled products. Patients with affected product should notify their physicians and/or return product to their pharmacies.

Patients with questions regarding this recall can contact Pfizer Medical Information at 1-800-438-1985 (Monday to Thursday 9am to 8pm ET or Friday, 9am to 5pm ET). Those who have questions about returning recalled capsules should contact Stericycle at 1-888-345-0481 (Monday to Friday 8am to 5pm ET).

Patients should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking this drug product.

As you can see from the images above, Effexor and Tykosin are very different in appearance and size. The Effexor pills are nearly twice as long as Tykosin and come in dark orange capsules. Tykosin’s capsules are peach in color. If your Effexor bottle has an odd-looking capsule inside that doesn’t match the others, you should not take it and you should contact the pharmacy that filled the prescription.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Social Media To Get Less Sexy As Vine Bans Porn And Most Nudity

(Robin Houde)

While most Vine users only post short, looped videos of their adorable cats, or of them and their friends making funny faces into the camera, there is apparently a subset of Viners who have been using the service to share their most private moments. But that’s coming to an end, with Vine announcing last night that it will no longer allow sexually explicit content.

In a new rules update, the video-sharing service set out explicit details of what will and won’t be tolerated on Vine.

The following are now considered no-no’s:

•Sex acts, whether alone or with another person

•Use of sex toys for sex acts

•Sexually provocative nudity, for example, posts that focus on exposed genitalia or depict nudity in a context or setting that is sexually provocative (like a strip club)

•Close-ups of aroused genitals underneath clothing

•Art or animation that is sexually graphic (such as hentai)

The company says it will still allow “suggestive” non-nude posts and nudity that is “primarily documentary, educational or artistic in nature.”

Vine gives the following examples of things that will be allowed:

•Nudity in a documentary context, e.g. videos of nude protestors

•Nudity in an artistic context, e.g. nude modeling in an art class

•Nudity that is not sexually provocative, e.g. a mother breastfeeding her child

•Clothed sexually suggestive dancing

“Users that violate this policy may be suspended and eligible for account restoration only after they have removed violating posts and certified that their account complies with the Vine Rules,” writes the company. “Severe or repeated violation of this policy may result in permanent suspension.”

It appears that Vine will be relying on users to report clips that violate this policy, which means some folks will continue uploading their bared bits until someone complains.

“[W]e don’t have a problem with explicit sexual content on the Internet,” explains Vine, “we just prefer not to be the source of it.”

[via ArsTechnica]

by Chris Morran via Consumerist