<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Jeremy Duffy - Awareness Advocate &#187; Big Business</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jeremyduffy.com/category/big-business/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com</link>
	<description>Helping to protect families and their loved ones from manipulation and fraud</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:53:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>130 Million Credit and Debit Card Numbers Stolen</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/130-million-credit-and-debit-card-numbers-stolen</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/130-million-credit-and-debit-card-numbers-stolen#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accountability MIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retailers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[130 million sure sounds like a lot, but keep in mind how many individual transactions companies like 7-eleven have in a single day. Besides wondering why the company security was so weak, I'm more interested in why these companies had so many credit card numbers on file in the first place. Once my transaction is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://consumerist.com/5339585/hackers-indicted-for-stealing-130-million-credit-card-numbers">130 million sure sounds like a lot</a>, but keep in mind how many individual transactions companies like 7-eleven have in a single day. Besides wondering why the company security was so weak, I'm more interested in why these companies had so many credit card numbers on file in the first place. Once my transaction is complete, they shouldn't possess the data anymore.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/130-million-credit-and-debit-card-numbers-stolen/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jailtime for Not Giving Up Your Encryption Keys</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/jailtime-for-not-giving-up-your-encryption-keys</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/jailtime-for-not-giving-up-your-encryption-keys#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:11:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Big Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[That crazy UK]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2385</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you have encrypted files on your computer for privacy or safety reasons, you could face big trouble. In some backwards parts of the world (*cough*, the UK, *cough*), they have actually sentenced people to jailtime for not volunteering their encryption keys/passwords.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you have encrypted files on your computer for privacy or safety reasons, you could face big trouble. In some backwards parts of the world (*cough*, the UK, *cough*), <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/11/ripa_iii_figures/">they have actually sentenced people to jailtime for not volunteering their encryption keys/passwords</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/jailtime-for-not-giving-up-your-encryption-keys/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Marketers Torture Barren Woman</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/marketers-torture-barren-woman</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/marketers-torture-barren-woman#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:19:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2383</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A New York Times article explains how a woman who couldn't get pregnant more than 10 years ago is still getting advertisements and marketing flyers for baby and child products. This is just another example of data rape at work.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A New York Times article explains how <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/business/09privacy.html?_r=2&#038;pagewanted=1&#038;em">a woman who couldn't get pregnant more than 10 years ago is still getting advertisements and marketing flyers for baby and child products</a>. This is just another example of data rape at work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/marketers-torture-barren-woman/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Symantec Partners with Lifelock</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/symantec-partners-with-lifelock</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/symantec-partners-with-lifelock#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:11:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corrupt Organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Identity Theft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ripoffs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Symantec partners with Lifelock, loses credibility.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow. Symantec has always been a fairly reputable company that I've had little issue with other than that their security software is historically bloated and a resource hog. But now that <a href="http://news.download3000.com/symantec-offers-norton-security-solutions-bundled-with-the-lifelock-service/">they've partnered with Lifelock</a>, I can only assume one of two things: Symantec is willing to throw their customers under the bus for money or they have no quality control. Either way, I think it's definitely time to stick with McAfee.</p>
<blockquote><p>If you want to stay safe while working on your computer or browsing web sites, you can get Norton Internet Security or Norton AntiVirus with a 30-day LifeBook service and 10% off the subscription, along with two movie tickets. After the trial period ends you will be charged automatically with $9 a month, or $99 annually.</p></blockquote>
<p>Granted, McAfee also does this "free trial" BS in order to trick customers into subscriptions that they didn't know they were getting, but at least the free trial is for their anti-virus software and not some shady ID theft insurance deal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/symantec-partners-with-lifelock/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lifelock Loses Court Battle and Two Bullet Points</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/lifelock-loses-court-battle-and-two-bullet-points</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/lifelock-loses-court-battle-and-two-bullet-points#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Good news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Identity Theft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ripoffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lifelock]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2367</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lifelock was sued by Experian for placing fraud alerts for anyone and everyone when the alerts are supposed to be set by individuals themselves and only when they feel they are at risk for ID theft. While I think the whole fraud alert system is bogus and it doesn't really matter if you set one [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lifelock was sued by Experian for placing fraud alerts for anyone and everyone when the alerts are supposed to be set by individuals themselves and only when they feel they are at risk for ID theft. While I think the whole fraud alert system is bogus and it doesn't really matter if you set one or not, I can't help but snicker that the <a href="http://lifelock-scam.com/lifelock-service-ruled-illegal/">courts ruled that the practice of a 3rd party company setting them for customers (like Lifelock does) is not legal</a>.</p>
<p>Considering that the first 2 bullet points on Lifelock's "what we do" page is "set fraud alerts" and "set them again after they expire", their list of what you supposedly get for the money you pay is going to look quite anemic indeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/lifelock-loses-court-battle-and-two-bullet-points/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beautiful Graphic of Descent into Credit Card Hell</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/beautiful-graphic-of-descent-into-credit-card-hell</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/beautiful-graphic-of-descent-into-credit-card-hell#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:07:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dirty Tricks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retailers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2353</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is a great description of a lot of the dirty tricks credit card companies pull. Remember that a credit-free lifestyle is possible.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a <a href="http://www.mint.com/blog/finance-core/the-descent-into-credit-card-debt/">great description of a lot of the dirty tricks credit card companies pull</a>. <a href='http://www.jeremyduffy.com/rps/books/total-money-makeover'  target=_self>Remember that a credit-free lifestyle is possible</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/beautiful-graphic-of-descent-into-credit-card-hell/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Acai Berry Company Ripoff Exposed</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/acai-berry-company-ripoff-exposed</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/acai-berry-company-ripoff-exposed#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:55:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ripoffs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2351</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Whether this Acai berry has any useful properties or not, when people purchased the "risk-free trial offer" ended up getting charged for tons of extras based on the sneaky way that the company set up their online purchasing system. Customers had to actively find and de-select options for upsell products and add-ons that were selected [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whether this Acai berry has any useful properties or not, when people purchased the "risk-free trial offer" ended up getting <a href="http://consumerist.com/5302729/acai-berry-drink-company-agrees-to-give-350k-back-to-bilked-customers">charged for tons of extras</a> based on the sneaky way that the company set up their online purchasing system. Customers had to actively find and de-select options for upsell products and add-ons that were selected by default. Anyone that failed to notice them was charged.</p>
<p>Be careful when dealing with infomercial and snazzy website ads for products that claim much, but deliver little. Particularly in the case of food, drinks, or medicines where you won't be able to see the truth of the claims for years (if ever).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/acai-berry-company-ripoff-exposed/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RIAA Appeal Goes Bad</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/riaa-appeal-goes-bad</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/riaa-appeal-goes-bad#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:02:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corrupt Organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[P2P]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jammie Thomas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thomas v Capitol]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2330</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bad news in the, "we thought that stupidity was starting to die out, but we guess not" department. The mother accused of sharing music online has been hit with a 2 million dollar fine even though they were never able to prove she did anything wrong.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A mother of 4 who was hit with a massive fee for sharing music online a while back finally won a new trial, but <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/19/copyright_victory_rich/">somehow ended up with a fine almost 10 times as high</a>!</p>
<p>Even though there was no proof of any harm done to the recording companies since there's no way for them to show that anyone actually downloaded any music from her, she was slapped with a nearly 2 million dollar fine for her immense crimes (which were never proven).</p>
<p>Even if 100,000 people had downloaded each of the 24 songs she supposedly shared online (which probably wasn't even intentional as filesharing software generally shares what you download by default), that <b>JTAG ERROR: http://the-great-copyright-holder-lie-music doesn't appear to be a post_name, link_note, or url</b>! This is a tragedy and I don't understand it. At best, it might be a judge's way of getting attention on the issue by pushing the verdict to absurd extremes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/riaa-appeal-goes-bad/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anti-virus Companies Get Slapped with Fees for Resubscribing People</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/anti-virus-companies-get-slapped-with-fees-for-resubscribing-people</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/anti-virus-companies-get-slapped-with-fees-for-resubscribing-people#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:13:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dirty Tricks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bullying]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2327</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The most important part of this story is that there was notice provided to customers of the resubscriptions, but because it was buried in the license agreement, the courts determined that the subscriptions were charged without consent. The investigators found that "information about automatic renewal charges was not clearly disclosed, but was instead hidden at [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The most important part of this story is that there was notice provided to customers of the resubscriptions, but because it was buried in the license agreement, <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/255649/symantec-and-mcafee-settle-over-autorenewals.html">the courts determined that the subscriptions were charged without consent</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>The investigators found that "information about automatic renewal charges was not clearly disclosed, but was instead hidden at the bottom of long web pages or in the fine print of license agreements".</p>
<p>The companies have now agreed to provide electronic notification both before and after the renewal of subscriptions. Customers will also be allowed to apply for refunds for up to 60 days after being charged. </p></blockquote>
<p>Just because it's in a contract, doesn't mean someone understands it. Companies have enormous leverage against regular people and it's nice to see that courts are standing up for the little guy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/anti-virus-companies-get-slapped-with-fees-for-resubscribing-people/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Senate Passes Credit Reform Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/senate-passes-credit-reform-bill</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/senate-passes-credit-reform-bill#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 18:33:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dirty Tricks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Good news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retailers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Credit Cards]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That bill that everyone's been talking about a while just passed with most of the good protections still in tact (go figure). Essentially, the bill is a shinging example of regulation at its best and industry at its worst as it mandates that credit companies stop doing things that are dishonest and one-sided. Wow. Who [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That <a href="http://consumerist.com/5261324/credit-card-reform-bill-passes-with-guts-intact">bill that everyone's been talking about</a> a while just passed with most of the good protections still in tact (go figure). Essentially, the bill is a shinging example of regulation at its best and industry at its worst as it mandates that credit companies stop doing things that are dishonest and one-sided. </p>
<p>Wow. Who knew that without laws to prevent it, companies would stoop to one-sided and dishonest policies for the sake of money&#8230; hmmm.</p>
<p>Some of the major points:</p>
<li> Plain-English contracts </li>
<li> Can't raise interest rates on existing balances unless the card holder is 60 days behind, then the rate has to be restored if payments are on time for six months.</li>
<li> 45 days advance notice required for rate increases.</li>
<li> Credit card companies can't charge a late fee if they themselves are late processing a payment.</li>
<li> Statements have to get mailed 21 days before the payment is due.</li>
<li> Harder to give credit cards to people under 21.</li>
<li> Rates can be increased within the first year</li>
<li> Promotional rates have to last at least 6 month</li>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/senate-passes-credit-reform-bill/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
