Researchers Hack Webcam While Disabling Warning Lights

- By NICK BILTON - December 19, 2013 - The New York Times

If you are sitting at your computer reading this, smile, you could be on camera. Actually, don’t smile.

Last week, researchers at Johns Hopkins University’s Department of Computer Science showed off an exploit that allows a hacker to take over some MacBook computers and activate their Web cameras without the users’ knowledge.

The webcam hacking technique, first reported by The Washington Post, is said to be similar to a tactic used to spy on Cassidy Wolf, a 19-year-old Miss Teen USA, who fell victim to a webcam hacker earlier this year.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested the man responsible for the spying on Ms. Wolf. He pleaded guilty to charges in connection with his spying on her and a number of other women, using software that could snap a picture or record video of them without warning.

The Johns Hopkins paper, titled “iSeeYou: Disabling the MacBook Webcam Indicator LED,” explains how the researchers were able to reprogram an iSight camera’s microcontroller to activate the recording functions and LED activation lights independently to spy on someone without giving that person any idea that the computer camera is in use.

Stephen Checkoway, an assistant research professor at Johns Hopkins and a co-author of the study, noted that as of now, the exploit works only on 2008 Apple products.

“The ubiquitous webcam indicator LED is an important privacy feature, which provides a visual cue that the camera is turned on,” the researchers wrote in the paper. By turning off the light, the security experts were able to capture video and photos without any indication to the person using the computer.

Mr. Checkoway has been tracking security issues for some time and is a member of the Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute,. He wrote the paper with Matthew Brocker, another researcher.

There have been past reports of people being spied on with webcams.

Last year, seven computer rental companies agreed to a settlement with the federal government after it was discovered that they were unlawfully capturing photos of customers by using illicit software that controlled a computer’s webcam.

The webcam software, called PC Rental Agent, had been installed on approximately 420,000 computers worldwide, according to the Federal Trade Commission, and was used to spy on thousands of people.

Security experts have warned that webcams are susceptible to hacking, and say there is only really one solution that can guarantee no one is spying on you: a piece of tape stuck over your computer camera.

An Easing of Rules on Charges by VISA, Master Card and American Express

- By HILARY STOUT - December 19, 2013 - The New York Times

After a decade of legal battles, the VISA, Master Card and American Express, the three major credit card companies are backing away from longstanding policies that prevented merchants from charging customers extra for paying with plastic.

Developments in two cases in the last week have the potential to change pricing practices everywhere from big box retailers to corner coffee shops, but whether they actually do remains to be seen. - Meanwhile it seems that using cash could be more cost effective and beneficial, saving money for consumers.

On Thursday, a group of small and midsize businesses reached a settlement agreement with American Express in a class-action lawsuit. Under the agreement, which a judge must approve, Amex will allow surcharges to its cardholders as long as the same amount is levied on other credit and charge card users. It agreed to drop a measure that required debit card surcharges at the same level, according to a lawyer representing the company.

The deal comes less than a week after a judge approved a settlement that included a similar change of rules in a huge class-action lawsuit against Visa and MasterCard, billed as the largest private antitrust settlement in American history.

The changes clear the way for vendors of all types to institute essentially a two-tier pricing system - charging more at the register to shoppers who pay by credit than to those who use debit cards or cash.

Marc Morrison, owner of Animal Land Inc., one of the plaintiff companies in the American Express case, said that if the settlement was approved, he planned to do just that.

“What I really am pleased about is the transparency that this creates,” said Mr. Morrison, whose company provides moving services for pets to people who are relocating abroad or within the United States. “Merchants can now effectively incentivize their customers to pay with debit cards,” which carry minimal fees or none at all.

The concept is similar to a system used at gas stations in certain states, which offer discounts to customers who use cash.

But it is unclear whether large numbers of retailers would change their pricing, and some have already indicated they would appeal the terms of the Visa-MasterCard settlement, a move that could delay any impact. “Our members have no interest in surcharging generally,” said Mallory Duncan, general counsel of the National Retail Federation. “It’s too complex and it’s consumer unfriendly.”

What retailers really want, Mr. Duncan said, is lower transaction fees in the first place and more competition in the payments market.

It is already a time of upheaval in the payments industry, as PayPal, numerous start-ups and new entrants with mobile payment apps vie for a piece of a market long dominated by traditional card companies. Mr. Duncan said retailers were hoping that the new climate would intensify market forces and push down fees.

Currently, many businesses do pass on to consumers so-called “swipe fees” — which are said to generally range from 1 to 3 percent of the transaction — by building them into the price of the goods and services they sell. That means all customers pay, a system that some contend amounts to poorer consumers subsidizing affluent holders of premium rewards cards.

“To maintain the fiction that Amex and other issuers offer free rewards, retailers had no choice but to inflate the prices they charge to all customers,” said Gary B. Friedman, the lead lawyer for the plaintiff companies in the American Express case.

In approving the Visa and MasterCard settlement, Judge John Gleeson of the United States District Court in Brooklyn wrote, “For the first time, merchants will be empowered to expose hidden bank fees to their customers, educate them about those fees and use that information to influence their customers’ choices of payment methods.”

But consumer advocates were doubtful that consumers would benefit even under a more transparent pricing system. “The jury is out as to whether consumers will benefit,” said Sally Greenberg, the executive director of the National Consumers League. “We’re skeptical as to whether this money will be returned to the consumer.”

Some businesses might be tempted to keep their current prices and add a surcharge for credit-paying customers, but Mr. Morrison of Animal Land said he would not do that. The average bill for Animal Land’s services is $3,000, he said. If the settlement is approved, he will reduce that cost for cash and debit card customers, he said, though he had not determined how much the discount would be. (A 3 percent discount would amount to $2,910; 2 percent would be $2,940.)

Other businesses might not want differential pricing at all, fearing the distinction could drive customers to rivals.

That is what American Express executives predicted. “While the modification of our contract provisions gives merchants some additional flexibility, many merchants continue to believe, as we do, that surcharging is fundamentally anti-consumer,” Tim Heine, the company’s managing counsel, said in a statement.

In addition, retail representatives said at least eight states, including Connecticut, Florida and Texas, have laws prohibiting surcharges on customers for credit card use. New York had a similar law but a federal judge struck it down in October.

A number of big retailers and restaurant chains have expressed unhappiness with the MasterCard and Visa settlement, which included a payout of more than $7 billion to merchants from the credit-card giants, because it effectively bars merchants from bringing further legal action against the card companies. Many, including Amazon and Target, as well as the retail federation, plan to appeal.

The American Express settlement did not include a monetary payment.

Nine states propose 16 anti-fluoridation bills in 2013 to protect public against this poison

- By Ethan A. Huff - Thursday, December 19, 2013

Things are heating up on the fluoride front as states and municipalities all across the country rethink their official water fluoridation policies. According to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), some 16 pieces of legislation across nine states were introduced or passed just within the past year to protect the public against this pervasive poison.

In Utah, for instance, the Safe Drinking Water Disclosure Act was passed back in April, requiring that all shipments of fluoride chemicals coming into the state be accompanied by certificates of analysis detailing the presence of any outside contaminants. The law reportedly took effect on July 1, allowing local water utilities to end their fluoridation programs in the event that certificates are not provided.

Fluoride additives, as you may recall, are often laced with other poisons like arsenic, cadmium and even radioactive isotopes that persist from the waste liquids used by the phosphate fertilizer and aluminum manufacturing industries to capture pollutants. These pollutants, not the natural environment, are the source from which the artificial fluoride chemicals added to water supplies are derived.

Tennessee, a leader in anti-fluoridation legislation, introduced two similar bills earlier this year requiring fluoride manufacturers to disclose the full contents of their chemicals. House Bill 1215 and Senate Bill 1274 were also accompanied by HB 1186 and SB 1211, two bills that would allow local voters to decide whether or not to continue fluoridating their water supplies. Statewide, Tennessee also introduced HR 130, which would prohibit state employees or agencies from endorsing fluoride.

"In years past the dental lobby has been successful in getting pro-fluoridation bills introduced in state legislatures across the United States, including legislation that would mandate statewide fluoridation -- a law 13 states presently have. But the tables are turning," explains FAN. "In 2013... instead of the introduction of pro-fluoride bills, we saw the exact opposite, with the introduction of 16 anti-fluoridation bills in 9 states."

Five states introduce legislation to eliminate fluoridation mandates

Concerning statewide fluoridation mandates, New Jersey successfully thwarted attempts by some legislators to require that its 9 million residents be forcibly medicated with fluoride poison. And at least five bills have been introduced, one each in South Dakota, Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois and Arkansas, to end longstanding fluoridation mandates.

"With the exception of the Illinois bill, all of these proposals are still being considered and are expected to have public hearings in 2014," adds FAN. "In preparation, FAN has been working with our point people and local groups within these states to organize grassroots campaigns in support of the legislation."

Besides the aforementioned bills, a handful of other anti-fluoride bills were introduced this year in Kansas, Massachusetts and New York. HB 2372 in Kansas now requires that warnings about fluoride and its effect on IQ -- a Harvard University study recently confirmed that fluoride exposure lowers IQ levels in children -- be printed on water bills.

In Massachusetts, a similar bill would require an infant fluoride warning similar to the infant warnings currently issued in New Hampshire; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Austin, Texas. And in New York, A 141 has been introduced to require that all fluoridated communities lower their poisoning level from 1.2 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride to 0.7 ppm of fluoride, in accordance with new recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

"It doesn't take an expert to see that the tide has shifted, that state legislators are discovering the truth about fluoridation, and that the momentum is clearly on our side going into the 2014 legislative sessions," concludes FAN.

To support the work of FAN and to keep up to date on fluoride legislation in your own community, visit:
http://fluoridealert.org.

Sources for this article include:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org

http://fluoridealert.org

http://science.naturalnews.com