TSA Finds Stowaway Chihuahua In Passenger’s Suitcase

(TSA)

We’re big fans of the Transportation Safety Administration’s hashtag-happy Instagram account, since we enjoy gawking at weaponry that people have tried to sneak on planes, from ammo-filled Bibles to throwing stars. Yet the TSA protected one traveler from a horrifying discovery at the end of her trip: her dog had stowed away in her suitcase, and she didn’t even know it.

My late dog would pull things out of my suitcase after I packed them, but this pup had a different plan to disrupt its owner’s travel. “While resolving a checked baggage alarm, an officer was shocked when he found a dog in the bag!” the TSA explains. It’s good to hear that a bag full of canine would set off some kind of alarm, since the dog could have suffocated inside the hard plastic suitcase. They tracked down the stowaway’s owner and reunited them. The TSA did not specify whether the traveler had to disrupt her plans to bring the dog home, or went along with its wishes and brought it along on the trip.

Ay, Chihuahua [Instagram]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Father Of Teen Poisoned By Caffeine Powder Files Lawsuit Blaming His Death On Supplement Makers, Amazon

(Carbon Arc)

The father of an Ohio teen who died in 2014 after ingesting a powdered caffeine marketed as a dietary supplement has filed a lawsuit against Amazon.com and the product’s distributors, claiming that they failed to provide proper warnings about the dangers of using the substance.

When the 18-year-old died, the amount of caffeine in his system was about 23 times greater than the level in a typical soda or coffee drinker, and a coroner ruled that his death was due to cardiac arrhythmia and seizure due to acute caffeine toxicity.

Since then, the Food and Drug Administration has warned people against ingesting pure caffeine, saying that a single teaspoon of the stuff is equivalent to 25 cups of coffee. Even then, it “is nearly impossible to accurately measure powdered pure caffeine with common kitchen measuring tools and you can easily consume a lethal amount,” the FDA cautioned last summer.

The lawsuit filed today lists defendants as a classmate who gave the teen the powder, reports the Associated Press; Amazon for shipping the powder to the classmate and six companies in Arizona that the father’s lawyer says packaged and sold the powder under the name Hard Rhino. He says it appears the companies are related.

According to the lawsuit, the package label informs users that a cup of coffee has about 1/32nd of a teaspoon of a caffeine, but though it also warns that the powder “can be dangerous if abused,” and “failure to follow safety guidelines can result in serious injury or death,” it lacks specific instructions on proper use.

The thought being, if you don’t know how much you are supposed to take, how do you know if you’re abusing it or are in danger?

“The difference between life and death is a pinch and a smidgen,” the attorney says, adding that Amazon has a team of compliance specialists that is supposed to review products before they can be sold on the site.

The father’s attorney says that despite the fact that Hard Rhino stopped selling the powder in light of the FDA’s warning, he was able to order the product from another company off the Internet recently.

“It’s still out there,” he said.

Amazon declined to comment to the AP, and the six companies in Arizona didn’t respond to messages.

Father of Ohio teen poisoned by caffeine powder files suit [Associated Press]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Lawmakers Want To Know Who’s Tracking You Online, And Where The Info Goes

(Mr Seb)

Everything you do online — on your phone, on your computer, with anything — leaves a digital wake. Put those trails together and you’ve got one massive big data industry that can (and does) track it all and sell it to the highest bidder. After decades of digital detritus building up, regulators and Congress both are contemplating some steps that would help protect consumers’ info.

The FTC will be holding a workshop this fall on how, and how much, companies are tracking you across multiple platforms on the big wide internet. Such workshops are often the first step in a long information-gathering process that can culminate in new rules.

Cross-platform tracking is the big thing for advertisers these days. Services like Facebook Atlas, for example, provide such cross-platform tracking to advertisers. If you are logged into the Facebook app on your phone, and you are logged into Facebook on your computer at work, Atlas will correlate both sets of data into one single profile for advertisers.

That includes information like “here are all the sites this person went to on this browser,” for your desktop, and “here are all the apps this person has and all the places GPS says this person went,” from your phone. Combine all of that information with all of the information you put on your Facebook profile — where you live, where you work, where you went to school, and rings upon rings of people you know and their information — and it’s a rich haul indeed for advertisers who want to goad you into spending more money.

This is not the FTC’s first foray into the world of big data; the agency has become responsible for consumer privacy and the use of consumer data almost by default. They have previously held workshops and published reports on the breadth and depth of the big data industry, which tracks and trades basically everything anyone does anywhere.

Some members of Congress are also now trying to take action on last year’s FTC big data report. Several senators — Richard Blumenthal (CT), Ed Markey (MA), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and Al Franken (MN) — have introduced the Data Broker Accountability and Transparency Act.

The bill would allow individuals to opt-out from companies using, sharing, or selling their personal data for marketing purposes. The bill would also require the FTC to set up a centralized clearinghouse-type website for consumers, to notify them of their rights.

Sen. Markey introduced a similar bill last year that did not clear committee.

Who’s tracking you online? Senate Dems want answers [The Hill]

The FTC wants to know how companies are tracking you across computers and smartphones [The Washington Post]

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

FDA Approves First “Biosimilar” Drug. Could Drive Down Cost Of Most Expensive Medications

(D O’Quinn)

Biotech drugs — which are generally derived from a living organism, as opposed to traditional purely chemical medications — are currently among the most expensive medicines available. But today, the Food and Drug Administration issued its first approval of a drug that is “biosimilar” to an existing biotech medication; a development that could possibly result in billions of dollars in savings.

But biotech drugs are sometimes so complex as to make exact replication for generic versions too expensive or difficult.

And so the 2010 Affordable Care Act allows for drugmakers to create biosimilar medications that will be if they can demonstrate they are highly similar to an already-approved “reference” product, and that the new drug “has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety and effectiveness from the reference product.”

The first FDA-approved biosimilar is Zarxio from New Jersey-based Sandoz, which the agency says is effectively the same as Amgen’s Neupogen (filgrastim), a drug given to chemotherapy patients to increase white blood cell counts. Zarxio will be approved for all the same therapeutic uses as Neupogen, and is in fact only approved for the indications and conditions of the older drug.

While the FDA says the two drugs are biosimilar, it does not deem them “interchangeable,” meaning patients currently on Neupogen can’t just switch over to Zarxio unless the original prescribing physician approves the change.

And because the two drugs are not entirely identical, Zarxio can’t yet share the filgrastim nonproprietary name of Neupogen. For now, the FDA is assigning the placeholder name of “filgrastim-sndz,” until the issue of nonproprietary names for biosimilars is resolved.

The ultimate hope for biosimilar drugs is that, much like the availability of generic drugs give consumers and physicians lower-cost treatment options, biosimilar drugs will result in more affordable biotech medications.

“Biosimilars will provide access to important therapies for patients who need them,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg in a statement. “Patients and the health care community can be confident that biosimilar products approved by the FDA meet the agency’s rigorous safety, efficacy and quality standards.”

Prescription benefits giant Express Scripts believes that the introduction of just Zarxio could save consumers and the healthcare system $5.7 billion over the next decade. If the 11 leading candidates for biosimilar status are also approved, the company projects a total savings of $250 billion in ten years.

Among the potential big-ticket drugs facing competition from biosimilars is the world’s best-selling prescription drug, Humira (adalimumab), which brought in more than $12 billion worldwide for AbbVie last year.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Consumers Want To Eat More Local Beef, But There Aren’t Enough Butchers These Days

(Emerson 113)

Does the idea of a hard day at work cutting up cattle carcasses appeal to you? If not, you’re not alone: Despite the growing trend toward eating more local beef, there simply aren’t enough people going into the profession of butchering to meet the increased demand.

The Associated Press spoke to one butcher who’s been in the meat-processing business for 38 years slaughtering cattle, who says he can see why few people want to get into the profession these days.

“It’s killing cows. It’s blood and guts,” he explains. He runs a small company with his wife in Iowa, and his three kids don’t want to follow in his footsteps.

Across the country, thousands of butchers are getting closer to retirement, without enough younger butchers with small companies willing to take on the task. In Iowa, for example, there were 450 small meat processors. Now, there are 140 or fewer.

This means small farmers who are already trucking their cattle 50 or 100 miles to get the meat processed by butchering businesses have to pass those increased transportation costs onto retailers and then, consumers.

But as butchers age out of the profession, those farmers will have to look elsewhere to get their beef to stay “local.” As it stands right now, those small meat processors are overwhelmed with business, and can’t find enough workers to keep up.

“We’re booked like four to five months in advance,” said the owner of a butchering shop in Ohio. And “finding anyone to help to work is harder and harder.”

To be sure, there are some new shops opening up as the demand for specialty meat grows, but it’s not easy or cheap to do so, Lauren Gwin, a professor at Oregon State University who coordinates the Niche Meat Processor Assistance Network told the AP.

“It’s a complex business,” said Gwin, whose group’s goal is to overcome the issues facing the industry. “You have to know a lot of things to run a business like this.”

More want local beef, but fewer want tough job of cutting it [Associated Press]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Report: Apple Sides With Music Labels, Thinks Free Streaming Service Tiers Are Bad

(Philippe Put)

Last year, Apple acquired Beats, a company that makes two things that go nicely with media players and smartphones: high-end headphones and a subscription-based music streaming service. While they’re happy to offer a free trial and will be reportedly be pushing the Beats Music app to iDevice users in the future, Apple will not follow competitor Spotify’s lead in offering a free, ad-supported tier.

This report comes from technology site Re/Code, and makes sense. Beats currently doesn’t offer a free version of its subscription, except for a two-week free trial for new users. That won’t change when Apple pushes the Beats app to users’ devices like so many U2 albums.

While people seem to enjoy streaming music for free on services like Spotify or by watching music videos on YouTube, two groups of stakeholders don’t care for this business model very much: musicians and record label executives. We probably could have expected that. Taylor Swift notably pulled all of her music from Spotify after releasing her latest album, and Re/Code quotes industry executives who are against the idea of free streaming. Lucian Grainge of Universal Music Group apparently believes that Spotify is the reason why users aren’t paying for as many downloads as they used to, yet the amount that labels get paid from streaming services hasn’t caught up to make the difference. About 12% of people who used to buy and listen to music through iTunes now stream through Spotify, and less than half of them have paid subscriptions.

Apple media leaders apparently agree, and have been making this argument around the industry.

Big Music Labels Want to Make Free Music Hard to Get, and Apple Says They’re Right [Re/Code]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Did Lyft Backtrack On $1,000 Bonus Promise For New Drivers Or Is It Simply Overwhelmed By Applicants?

(Σπύρος Βάθης)

In an effort to raise a fleet of drivers for its ride-sharing service, Lyft offered $1,000 bonuses both to new drivers and those referring them last week. But it appears the company might have bitten off more than it can chew after receiving more applications than anticipated, leaving some hopeful drivers without bonuses.

Business Insider reports Lyft announced some of the newly signed-on drivers might not qualify for the referral bonus after all.

According to the original spring driver referral deal – which began February 27 – Lyft would pay $1,000 to new drivers and the current driver who referred them if the new driver completed one ride by March 5.

The only problem is that in order to become a Lyft driver, consumers must fulfill the company’s safety obligations, including driving with a mentor, as well as completing DMV and background checks, which can take days to be finalized.

Making matters worse, the company has reported its approval process is backed-up because of the high enrollment its seen since announcing the promotion.

“This promotion brought the biggest wave of applicants in Lyft history,” an update to the referral promotion states. “It is possible that you won’t qualify for the promotion if your DMV check and background check aren’t completed by the March 5 deadline.”

In some cases, Lyft has extended the ride completion deadline into next week, as long as those drivers have applied, passed their DMV checks and background checks, the company tells Business Insider.

“We owe it to the driver community and our passengers to make sure our approval process is rigorous and complete,” the company said in a follow-up email to potential drivers. “All elements of our safety process are imperative and can take time – that means some applications haven’t been approved yet even though the applicant’s DMV and background checks are in. We know this can be frustrating.”

Unsurprisingly, some potential new drivers questioned Lyft’s intention with the promotion and apparent about-face.

“I’m thinking this either is huge scheme just to get people to sign up and drive,” a member of the UberPeople online forum posted, speculating the company may have taken its time with the background checks to limit the number of referral bonuses issues or simply didn’t anticipate its popularity.

For its part Lyft tells drivers that it won’t use any information from their applications if they don’t qualify for the promotion or if they decide not to pursue a job with the company.

“Lyft learned a lesson this week, and we’re sorry for the frustration it caused you,” an email to potential drivers states. “We vastly underestimated the volume of applications we would receive for our $1,000 sign-on promotion, which was created to help us keep up with record-breaking passenger demand.”

Lyft apologizes for angering potential drivers after it promised eye-popping bonuses [Business Insider]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

“Stressed Out” Badger Prevents Staff And Guests From Entering, Leaving Luxury Hotel

(Expressen TV)

Guests and staff at a luxury hotel in Stockholm found themselves at the whim of one erratic badger, whose aggressive stance kept anyone from either entering or leaving the place for some time this morning. Want to pick up your bags or go through those revolving doors? Nope. Much like his honey-loving cousin, hotel badger does not care what you want.

“A crazy or stressed-out badger is preventing the staff and clients at a major hotel from leaving their cars, and from picking up their bags,” the Stockholm police website said, via The Local.

Things got serious at the Radisson Blu around five a.m., when the badger decided no one was doing anything whatsoever involving those front doors on his watch, which lasted for 40 minutes until police decided to get involved.

“The stressed animal was refusing to leave the place. So the police called in the local wildlife services to settle the problem,” the police statement said.

By the time wildlife services arrived, however, the badger had somehow calmed itself down enough to leave the premises before it could be caught.

Badger puts Stockholm hotel in lockdown [The Local]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Why Does A Tube Of Cold Sore Cream Cost $2,500?

In Canada, you can buy a tube of brand-name prescription cold sore cream Zovirax for around $50. Its generic equivalent (acyclovir) is half that price. And even here in the states you can find generics acyclovir pills and ointments for a reasonable price, so why does what is effectively the same product for more than $2,500 in the U.S.?

That was the question asked by the L.A. Times’ David Lazarus, after a reader noticed that while he forked over an already hefty $95 co-pay for his tube of Zovirax cream, his hospital paid the drug company Valeant $2,532.80 — for a single tube.

And this wasn’t a mistake. The patient contacted the pharmacy, operated by managed care giant Kaiser Permanente, where employees confirmed that this is simply the price paid for the product.

Which brings us back to the question of why does it cost so much?

Zovirax is produced by big-pharma biggie GlaxoSmithKline, but is now distributed in the U.S. and Canada by Valeant.

A third company, Actavis, now has the rights to market an “authorized” generic version of the medication in the U.S., and there are other drug companies selling acyclovir generics without that label.

However, none of these generics come in “cream” form. They are ointments, which have a higher oil:water ratio than creams, but which are medically identical.

And so the only acyclovir cream being sold in the U.S. is from Valeant, reports Lazarus, who tried to get an explanation from the company about why it charges so much.

A rep for Valeant said the price tag for the Zovirax cream “takes into account many factors, the cost of the active and inactive ingredients, the manufacturing process, the packaging and its related process, as well as the distribution and a myriad of other expenses.”

Keen observers may have noticed that the rep didn’t really answer the question, but did explain how a company would price, well… anything.

A more likely explanation, is that Canadian law places restrictions on drug prices and Valeant is making money stateside where it can.

“If there’s a take-away from [the patient’s] story,” writes Lazarus, “it’s that America’s healthcare system is designed to maximize cash flow for its corporate players and that there are few safeguards to keep costs down.”

We were surprised that Kaiser, which would only say that its price is comparable to what others pay, did not suggest a lower-priced generic ointment for the patient, which is why it behooves all of us to ask our doctors and pharmacists about less-expensive options for our medications.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

What Is The FREAK Flaw And How Much Should I, Well, Freak Out About It?

(Saechang)

There are certain websites that you expect to be secure. The NSA’s and FBI’s sites, for example, or any shopping site you enter your credit card information on. They say HTTPS, and they show a lock, so they’re fine, right? Wrong. A team of researchers this week has announced the finding of a flaw they’re calling FREAK. It interferes with that encryption and makes some sites vulnerable — and it’s everywhere. Not just on laptop and desktop computers, but also on mobile phones and tables. Here’s what you need to know.

What does the FREAK flaw do?

Like other security flaws we’ve heard about this year, the FREAK flaw would let a third party interrupt a secure connection, to intervene in-between your computer and the website you’re sharing data with. Just in a very different way.

The TL;DR version of the technical explanation is: when a vulnerable device connects to a vulnerable HTTPS-protected site (these tend to display a lock or a green icon of some kind in your URL bar), a flaw in the encryption could let an attacker jump in to grab the data going back and forth between the two. And that includes personal information, passwords, and anything else.

The original highly technical explanation, from the researchers who identified the exploit, is here, with another very detailed explanation here.

What platforms are vulnerable or affected?

It’s a depressingly large list. The browsers and platforms known to be vulnerable include:

• Android: stock browser


• Android: Chrome


• Blackberry: stock browser


• iOS (iPhone/iPad): Safari


• Linux: Opera


• Mac OS: Chrome


• Mac OS: Opera


• Mac OS: Safari


• Windows: Internet Explorer

What platforms aren’t affected?

Firefox, on all operating systems (computers and phones), seems to be ok as far as anyone can tell. There is a patch available to fix it for Chrome for Mac users already.

What sites are vulnerable?

That is another depressingly long list, from retail to government and lots of things in between. Some of the highest-traffic domains that are affected include Business Insider, American Express, Groupon, Bloomberg, NPR, Kohls, and MIT. A number of very high-profile government sites were also affected, including the NSA, the FBI, and the White House’s sites, as well as the site (USAJobs) that all applicants for any federal job must use.

Where did it come from, and how long has it been a problem?

The flaw has been out in the wild for over a decade. Basically, we have some questionable choices of the 1990s to thank.

Security, encryption, and data privacy had a slightly different set of priorities attached to them during the Clinton administration than they do now, and back then the feds set up a requirement that any software or hardware that was exported outside of the U.S. had to have weak encryption keys. Many businesses set up dual-track encryption grades, using the good stuff at home and exporting the weak versions. Eventually those restrictions were dropped but somehow the weak versions have ended up still being used on a whole bunch of sites (or, rather, their servers) and on the devices that access them.

That’s where the “FREAK” name comes from: it’s more or less an acronym for “Factoring attack on RSA-EXPORT Keys.”

How did we learn about this issue?

From a team of security researchers, as opposed to from a massive data dump or worldwide hack. A team at the University of Michigan is maintaining an information clearinghouse site on the vulnerability here.

How hard would this be to exploit?

The researchers who announced the findings said, from their proof-of-concept testing, that it takes about 7 hours to break into a site using this vulnerability.

Has anyone used this particular flaw to steal my data?

Honestly? We have no real idea. Man-in-the-middle attacks — where bad guys pop in to a flaw and steal information between source A and destination B — are pretty popular, as these things go, and there’s no way right now to know who has taken advantage of this particular flaw, when, or where.

But the good news is, this particular flaw should be less useful in the future. Patches to fix this particular problem are already out or are expected very soon. So make sure you update your browser or phone OS the next time it asks you to.

by Kate Cox via Consumerist