Prevent Holiday Health Hazards

Tip- Use the disposable thermometer.

Prevent Holiday Health Hazards (food poisoning)

Dont’ leave cold food out of the fridge for longer than 1 hour and hot food longer than 2 hours.

Get a T Stick disposable thermometer  from GIANT chain store

Cook food to the right temperature and check with disposable thermometer. Metal thermometer has to be washed after EACH USE with hot water and soap to stop cross contamination or reinserting bacteria in the food each time you poke it.
Use the disposable thermometer instead – safer.

EFF's New Guide Helps Travelers Defend Their Data Privacy

Protect Yourself from Intrusive Laptop and Phone Searches at the U.S. Border

Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release
For Immediate Release: Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Contact:
Marcia Hofmann Senior Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation
marcia@eff.org    +1 415 436-9333 x116
Seth Schoen Senior Staff Technologist Electronic Frontier Foundation
seth@eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x107

Protect Yourself from Intrusive Laptop and Phone Searches at the U.S. Border

EFF’s New Guide Helps Travelers Defend Their Data Privacy

Continue reading “EFF's New Guide Helps Travelers Defend Their Data Privacy”

Driver's Privacy Protection act of 1994 lets them sell your information.

Resellers of personal information gleaned from a driver’s records cannot be held strictly liable for misuse of that information by purchasers under the Driver’s Privacy Protection thanks to moron Richard Berman of the Southern District of New York who granted summary judgment to resellers.

NO STRICT LIABILITY FOR RESELLERS OF PERSONAL DATA, COURT FINDS

Resellers of personal information gleaned from a driver’s records cannot be held strictly liable for misuse of that information by purchasers under the Driver’s Privacy Protection
Act of 1994, a federal judge has ruled. Addressing an issue of first impression in the Second Circuit, Judge Richard Berman of the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to resellers on a car owner’s claim they sold his personal information to a man who used it to harass and threaten him. Berman’s ruling came in Gordon v. Softech International Inc., 10 Civ. 5162, where he was required to sort out a dispute over an alleged car accident and its aftermath.
Continue reading “Driver's Privacy Protection act of 1994 lets them sell your information.”

Da Vinci Code inspires secure USB drive

The external 8cm barrel comprises five aluminium alloy rotating rings on
which each has printed the 26 letters of the English alphabet. Removing
the USB flash drive from within the cylinder involves entering the
correct combination of which there are 14,348,907 possible combinations
thanks to the decision to adopt letters on each ring rather than
numbers.
The USB drive contained within the barrel uses 256-bit AES encryption,
adding another layer of security to the physical design, with a
customisable auto-format option for incorrectly-entered passwords.

Makhnevich, DDS Sued for violating patient's online rights of review

Public Citizen has filed a class action lawsuit against a New York dentist, Stacy Makhnevich, who not only used the Medical Justice forms, but then sent one of her patients invoices, supposedly billing him $100 per day for having posted comments about her online.

Dentist Sued for Enforcing Contract on Online Reviews

A patient is suing a dentist for enforcing a contract that restricts patients from publicly commenting on her practice. The lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the Southern District of New York, accuses Stacy Makhnevich, DDS, of violating the rights of patient Robert Allen Lee by threatening him with a lawsuit for posting critical comments about Dr. Makhnevich on 2 online review sites.
Continue reading “Makhnevich, DDS Sued for violating patient's online rights of review”

Academic Urology opts out of IBC Independence Blue Cross Network

PA citizens can contact @SenBobCasey @SenToomey @JohnGeorgePBJ to let them know IBC needs to help the 30,000 patients using #Academic Urology doctors to save their lives.

Academic Urology Important Message for IBC Patients

<snip>
Academic Urology Out of Independence Blue Cross Network
(December 1, 2011—King of Prussia, PA) Academic Urology, the largest urology specialty medical group in Pennsylvania and largest provider of urology services to Independence Blue Cross (IBC) subscribers, is no longer a participating provider for IBC insurance plans.  Academic Urology’s current contract with IBC expired on November 30, 2011. Approximately 30,000 patients are impacted by IBC’s decision not to renew its contract with Academic Urology.

IBC  drops Academic Urology, effective December 1, 2011.
“According to our analysis, IBC’s “take it or leave it” contract offer to Academic Urology would cut our reimbursement by 38 percent from the rates the insurer agreed to pay in our most recent four year contract”.

“A reduction of that magnitude does not allow us to provide the quality care necessary for our patients.  Unfortunately, IBC continually declined to negotiate despite our repeated requests and an outcry from hundreds of patients.  We feel the insurer has put its business interests ahead of patient care.”

Academic Urology Opts  Out of Independence Blue Cross Network
Academic Urology, the largest urology specialty medical group in Pennsylvania and largest provider of urology services to Independence . Dispute as an Independence Blue Cross relationship ends
Philadelphia Business Journal
IBC says it is open to discussing a pay-for-performance contract with Academic Urology. Academic Urology,  the largest urology group in PA
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2011/12/01/dispute-as-independence-blue-cross.html
Academic Urology out of Independence Blue Cross
Academic Urology, the largest urology specialty medical group in Pennsylvania and largest provider of urology services to Independence …

Facebook Settles FTC Charges That It Deceived Consumers By Failing To Keep Privacy Promises

Facebook has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived its users and failed to keep their information private, agreeing on Tuesday to establish a comprehensive privacy program that includes independent audits for the next 20 years. The settlement bars Facebook from making any further deceptive privacy claims, requires that the company get consumers’ approval before it changes the way it shares their data, and requires that it obtain periodic assessments of its privacy practices by independent, third-party auditors for the next 20 years. There are no monetary penalties. but if Facebook doesn’t honor the deal, the company is on the hook for $16,000 per violation per day.

11/29/2011
Facebook Settles FTC Charges That It Deceived Consumers By Failing To Keep Privacy Promises
The social networking service Facebook has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public. The proposed settlement requires Facebook to take several steps to make sure it lives up to its promises in the future, including giving consumers clear and prominent notice and obtaining consumers’ express consent before their information is shared beyond the privacy settings they have established.
The FTC’s eight-count complaint against Facebook is part of the agency’s ongoing effort to make sure companies live up to the privacy promises they make to American consumers. It charges that the claims that Facebook made were unfair and deceptive, and violated federal law.
How to report a problem and get an underage kid off facebook.
#parent facebook #underage kid
SOCIAL NETWORKS EXPLAINED #21st century Literacy Skills
Do K-12 Students Understand that Facebook is Public?
Facebook is obligated to keep the promises about privacy that it makes to its hundreds of millions of users,” said Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC. “Facebook’s innovation does not have to come at the expense of consumer privacy. The FTC action will ensure it will not.”
The FTC complaint lists a number of instances in which Facebook allegedly made promises that it did not keep:

  • In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. They didn’t warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance.
  • Facebook represented that third-party apps that users’ installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users’ personal data – data the apps didn’t need.
  • Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences – for example with “Friends Only.” In fact, selecting “Friends Only” did not prevent their information from being shared with third-party applications their friends used.
  • Facebook had a “Verified Apps” program & claimed it certified the security of participating apps. It didn’t.
  • Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers. It did.
  • Facebook claimed that when users deactivated or deleted their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible. But Facebook allowed access to the content, even after users had deactivated or deleted their accounts.
  • Facebook claimed that it complied with the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and the European Union. It didn’t.

The proposed settlement bars Facebook from making any further deceptive privacy claims, requires that the company get consumers’ approval before it changes the way it shares their data, and requires that it obtain periodic assessments of its privacy practices by independent, third-party auditors for the next 20 years.

Specifically, under the proposed settlement, Facebook is:

  • barred from making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of consumers’ personal information;
  • required to obtain consumers’ affirmative express consent before enacting changes that override their privacy preferences;
  • required to prevent anyone from accessing a user’s material more than 30 days after the user has deleted his or her account;
  • required to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program designed to address privacy risks associated with the development and management of new and existing products and services, and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of consumers’ information; and
  • required, within 180 days, and every two years after that for the next 20 years, to obtain independent, third-party audits certifying that it has a privacy program in place that meets or exceeds the requirements of the FTC order, and to ensure that the privacy of consumers’ information is protected.

The proposed order also contains standard record-keeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance with its order.
Facebook’s privacy practices were the subject of complaints filed with the FTC by the Electronic Privacy Information Center and a coalition of consumer groups.
The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 4-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through December 30, 2011 after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit comments online or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.
NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has actually violated the law. A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Claudia Bourne Farrell
Office of Public Affairs

202-326-2181
STAFF CONTACT:
Laura Berger
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-460-8364