Current Events in May 2019

As consumers prep for summer vacation, they’ve got plenty on their hands. There are changes arising from the grounding of the Boeing 737 Max, travel alerts for 57 countries, the need to find the safest airline, figuring out how to keep the kiddos entertained at the airport, deciding whether to check a bag or carry it on, and navigating whatever hoops are necessary if a traveler wants to bring along a pet or an emotional support animal.

While all of these are important from a safety standpoint, travelers continue to look for better all- around give-and-take from the airlines.

Where do we start? How about transparent pricing? The Washington Post reported on Friday that when it comes to laws that protect the consumer -- and make them happy -- travelers continue to be second banana.

“In recent years, efforts to make those things happen have met with mixed results,” writes Post columnist Christopher Elliott.

“Consumer advocates such as John Breyault, Vice President, Public Policy, Telecommunications, and Fraud at the National Consumers League, (NCL) are pushing for legislation that would relieve one of the biggest pain points for travelers: out-of-control add-on fees, known in airline-speak as ‘ancillary fees.’ The legislation is called the FAIR Fees Act, and it nearly passed last year.”

In a nutshell, the FAIR Fees Act was crafted to “prohibit air carriers from imposing fees that are not reasonable and proportional to the costs incurred by the air carriers, and for other purposes.”

The bill received bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate, but it couldn’t make it over the hump (and deep pockets) of airline lobbyists, so it stalled.

Frequent flyer miles -- a recipe for deception?

If you’ve tried to book a flight using miles and gotten frustrated by the process, there’s something else Breyault would like you to know.

“By some estimates, there are more than 20 trillion frequent flyer miles that go unused. Consumers looking to use some this summer to fly, however, need to be aware that airlines have practically free reign to change the value of their miles,” Breyault told ConsumerAffairs.

“From a flyer's perspective, the flight or upgrade you thought you would be able to buy with miles today might not be available tomorrow. We think that more attention needs to be paid to frequent flyer programs to see if they are actually getting the great deal that the airlines claim they are. Consumers often choose a flight because they want to accrue miles. But, if they can have no confidence what those miles will be worth in terms of purchasing power down the road, that seems like a recipe for deception to me.”

Consumer advocates are not giving up

Undaunted, consumer defenders continue to fight for the consumer. The NCL’s most recent effort was a joint letter signed by it and fellow consumer advocates like the Business Travel Coalition, Consumer Federation of America, and FlyersRights.org.

“For years, consumers have had to endure the airlines’ imposition of fee after fee for services like seat reservations, checked bags, and ticket changes that used to be included in the basic cost of flying,” the letter reads.

“Airlines often claim that the unbundling of fees for these services has reduced the cost of flying. However, it does not take an economist to spot that airlines’ rapidly increasing fees far outpace both the rate of inflation and the cost to provide the service.”

“There is a new impetus for this,” Breyault told the Post. “The latest Aeroflot disaster, in which some passengers grabbed luggage from overhead bins before evacuating the plane, is putting the focus back on added fees, especially for checked baggage.”

Hotels are in the crosshairs, too

Ever heard of a “mandatory resort fee”? It’s also called a facility fee, destination fee, amenity fee, urban fee, or a resort charge, but you may have fallen victim to it when you go to check out of the hotel and find there’s a separate -- and often considerable -- fee in addition to the base room rate.

The American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA) says the fee provides a benefit to the consumer -- one that “...ensure(s) guests have what they want and need from their travel experience.” Examples would be turn-down bed service, access to the swimming pool, and Wi-Fi.

“They were created in an effort to provide consumers with the best value by grouping amenity fees into one cost. If consumers were charged individual fees for all amenities, the cost would likely be prohibitive,” writes the AHLA.

However, the ALHA admits that these fees “are not common practice in the hotel industry” and points to the fact that only seven percent of hotels currently charge resort fees. Those being mainly properties that have more than the usual number of available amenities.

Fighting against the tide of fees

The AHLA’s seven percent metric doesn’t cut it with the overwhelming number of consumers who are bugged by hidden fees.

The American Society of Travel Advisors (ASTA) told the Post that one of its surveys showed 61  percent of American travelers disagree with resort fees, particularly the ones charged in addition to the advertised price.

“We support transparency in travel pricing,” Eben Peck, ASTA’s executive vice president for advocacy told the Post. “Hidden resort fees violate that principle.”

There’s legal action being taken on those fees, too. In 2016, 47 state Attorneys General initiated an investigation into the practice of hotel resort fees, calling Marriott, for one, on the carpet. Wyndham is also part of a lawsuit in Pennsylvania Federal Court for slyly advertising low rates without being upfront about the additional hotel resort fees.

“Other travel industry practices have not been targeted by legislation but should be,” Elliot opined. “They include fraudulent rental car repair bills, for example,” which would be taken care of via “a comprehensive law that would make frivolous car-rental damage claims illegal.”

Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a fix that covers everything, but baby steps in the right direction are better than none at all. In Elliott’s mind, “a stricter price-disclosure law would address many of them… and end a lot of shenanigans with hotel resort fees and airline ancillary fees.”

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said in a report released Thursday that another Tesla driver activated their car’s Autopilot feature and then took their hands off the steering wheel before fatally colliding with another vehicle.

The incident, which happened on March 1 in Florida, is the fourth involving the automaker’s Autopilot feature that has resulted in a death. Investigators said 50-year-old Jeremy Beren Banner had turned on Autopilot about 10 seconds before his Model 3 collided with a semi truck. His hands weren’t on the wheel and no “evasive maneuvers” were executed before the crash.

“From less than 8 seconds before the crash to the time of impact, the vehicle did not detect the driver’s hands on the steering wheel,” the NTSB said.

As the investigation is still in its early stages, the NTSB didn’t say whether it found the Model 3 driver at fault.

Tesla defends Autopilot

In a statement, Tesla said it is “deeply saddened” by the accident but emphasized that it continues to believe the feature increases driver safety when used correctly.

“Our thoughts are with everyone affected by this tragedy,” a company spokesperson said.

“Tesla drivers have logged more than one billion miles with Autopilot engaged, and our data shows that, when used properly by an attentive driver who is prepared to take control at all times, drivers supported by Autopilot are safer than those operating without assistance,” Tesla said. “For the past three quarters we have released quarterly safety data directly from our vehicles which demonstrates that.”

Similar incidents

The latest crash was similar in nature to one that occurred in 2016, when Tesla owner Joshua Brown fatally crashed into a truck in his Model S. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ultimately decided that a “lack of safeguards” contributed to Brown’s death.

Autopilot has been at the center of at least two other deadly crashes. Last March, Apple engineer Wei “Walter” Huang died in a crash while in his Model X with Autopilot activated. Huang’s hands weren’t detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision. Prior to that, in January 2016, Gao Yaning in Handan, China was killed during a fatal collision involving a Tesla with Autopilot engaged.  

Consumer groups have expressed concern over the way Tesla markets Autopilot. Last May, the Center for Auto Safety and Consumer Watchdog called Tesla’s marketing of its semi-autonomous driving software “deceptive and misleading.”

"Tesla is the only automaker to market its Level 2 vehicles as 'self-driving,' and the name of its driver assistance suite of features, Autopilot, connotes full autonomy," the group said in a letter to the FTC.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has said previously asserted that serious accidents involving Autopilot are “almost always, in fact maybe always” caused by an inexperienced user.

“The issue is more one of complacency,” Musk said in an earnings call last year. “They just get too used to it. That tends to be more of an issue. It’s not a lack of understanding of what Autopilot can do. It’s [drivers] thinking they know more about Autopilot than they do.”

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai was grilled this week about the alleged sale of phone-location data to entities with no clear rights to possess it.

Appearing before a House committee, the FCC chairman got a scolding and a warning that “lying to Congress is a federal crime.” Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) warned Pai that what he told the panel was at odds with what she had heard elsewhere.

Eshoo aimed pointed questions at Pai asking for details about what she had heard was an FCC probe into the apparently illegal sale of phone-location data to third-party individuals and organizations.

The Congressional inquiry appeared to expose an intensely partisan divide within the FCC, where Republicans hold three seats and the Democrats control two. Democrats on the FCC board contend there is a “black market” in data that is being used to erode consumers’ privacy protections.

Democratic lawmakers accused Pai of withholding information from their party members. During the hearing, Pai was noncommittal about whether he would share basic information about the investigation with the FCC’s two Democratic commissioners, Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks.

Not aware of requests for information

Pai said he had never withheld information from Democratic FCC commissioners. He said he was not aware of requests for information made by the Democratic commissioners.

Pai said that in February, just after Starks had joined the FCC, he had offered the new commissioner control of the investigation into how location data was being used. He said the Democrat had turned down the offer.

Consumers’ location data is extremely valuable knowledge. Advertisers pay handsomely for it because they have found if they can target an advertisement to a consumer who is close to the client’s location, that person is much more likely to become a customer.

But critics say location information, in the wrong hands, could be dangerous. The technology site Motherboard reports it gave a bounty hunter $300 to track someone’s cell phone and he was able to pinpoint their location within a quarter-mile.

If a law enforcement agency wants to track the location of a criminal suspect, it must get legal authorization. Last year the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant to get access to cell phone location information.

During a congressional hearing on Thursday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D - NY) asked Daniel O’Day, the CEO of pharmaceutical company Gilead, why the HIV prevention drug Truvada is so much more expensive here than it is in Australia.  

Here in the U.S., the drug costs over $1,700, whereas in Australia it costs just $8. Ocasio-Cortez suggested the drug is cheaper in Australia because the country has universal healthcare.

"We the people developed this drug," she said. "We paid for this drug, we led and developed all the patents to create PrEP [the commonly known name for Truvada] and then that patent has been privatized, despite the fact that the patent is owned by the public, who refused to enforce it.”

“There is no reason this should be $2,000 a month,” the congresswoman continued. “People are dying because of it, and there’s no enforceable reason for it.”

O’Day explained that Truvada “still has patent protection in the United States and in the rest of the world it is generic.” He said the drug will be generically available in the U.S. in 2020.

“We have to be sure that Americans get our medicines at a price that allows us to invest in research,” O’Day said.

Blaming the system

Ocasio-Cortez noted that Gilead pulled in $3 billion in global revenue from the drug last year. However, she told O’Day that she wasn’t trying to “vilify” him; rather, it’s the nation’s current “system of incentives” that she took issue with.  

"This isn't about you as an individual or who you are or your character. This is about a system of incentives that we have set up. And when it comes to who to blame for this, I don't blame you," she said. "I blame us. I blame this body because every single developed country in the world guarantees health care as a right except us, except the United States, because we can't get it together."

O’Day appeared before the House Oversight Committee because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a significant portion of the research that went into creating Truvada and also owns a patent for PrEP.

In a prepared statement, O’Day denied the claim that the federal agency holds a patent for the drug.

”Every single Gilead employee is proud that we invented Truvada, a medicine that can both treat and prevent HIV,” he said. “Our well-supported view is that the U.S. government does not hold valid patents on the use of Truvada for pre-exposure prophylaxis, nor does it hold any patent for Truvada itself.”

Job site Glassdoor recently compiled a list of the highest-paying entry level jobs and internships for 2019, and a majority of the positions on the list are either in technology or a technology-related field.

With an average starting salary of $95,000, data scientist topped the list, followed by software engineer at $90,000. In the internship category, Amazon and Facebook pay the most at $7,725 and $8,000 per month, respectively.

The list “can serve as a menu of aspirational jobs to potentially work toward, especially as the majority of these entry-level jobs are in the STEM field and require strong technical skills,” said Amanda Stansell, the senior research analyst for Glassdoor.

Highest-paying entry level jobs

Glassdoor said it’s a particularly good time for college students and recent graduates to kick off their careers because of the strong job market.

“With historically low unemployment rates and growing job counts, job seekers are in the driver’s seat when it comes to where they want to work and employers are willing to pay top dollar for roles and skills that are in high demand but short supply,” the study said.

These are the top 25 highest-paying jobs, according to Glassdoor:

1. Data scientist: $95,000

2. Software engineer: &90,000

3. Product manager: $89,000

4. Investment banking analyst: $85,000

5. Product Designer: $85,000

6. UX designer: $73,000

7. Implementation consultant:$72,000

8. Java developer: $72,000

9. Systems engineer: $70,000

10. Software developer: $68,000

11. Process engineer: $68,258

12. Front end developer: $67,500

13. Product engineer: $66,750

14. Actuarial analyst: $66,250

15. Electrical engineer: $66,000

16. Mechanical engineer: $65,000

17. Design engineer: $65,000

18. Applications developer: $65,000

19. Test engineer: $65,000

20. Programmer analyst: $65,000

21. Quality engineer: $64,750

22. Physical therapist: $63,918

23. Field engineer: $63,750

24. Project engineer: $63,000

25. Business analyst: $63,000

The highest-paying internships can be viewed here.

In the latest study designed to help consumers maintain healthy lifestyles, researchers have discovered that eating diets full of processed foods ultimately leads to overeating and weight gain.

The experiment involved having participants follow two diets: one containing highly processed foods and another containing minimally processed foods. Regardless of calorie count, highly processed foods consistently led participants to eat more and gain more weight.

“Though we examined a small group, results from this tightly controlled experiment showed a clear and consistent difference between the two diets,” said researcher Dr. Kevin D. Hall. “This is the first study to demonstrate causality -- that ultra-processed foods cause people to eat too many calories and gain weight.”

What’s in our food

To see how highly processed foods affected consumers’ eating habits and weights, the researchers had 20 participants -- 10 males and 10 females -- experiment with two different diets for two weeks at a time for one month.

The highly processed diet included foods that contain high fructose corn syrup, artificial flavorings, and hydrogenated oils, among other ingredients. The diet containing minimally processed foods offered healthier options and gave participants more fruits, vegetables, and proteins. However, both diets were the same nutritionally; regardless of what their meals consisted of, the participants were consuming the same amount of calories, carbs, fiber, sugar, and fat.

By the end of the month, the nutritional information was the only thing that remained the same between the participants, as following the highly processed diet led to some concerning health results.

The researchers found that participants on the highly processed diet were not only eating faster at mealtimes, they were also consuming around 500 more calories per day than their counterparts; participants following this diet gained about two pounds at the end of the two weeks.

Conversely, those who followed the minimally processed food diet lost about two pounds at the end of their two weeks, which the researchers credit to the protein they were given at meals.

The researchers were primarily concerned with how these results can affect consumers’ health in the future, and they hope this information is helpful when mealtime rolls around.

“Over time, extra calories add up, and that extra weight can lead to serious health conditions,” said Dr. Griffin P. Rodgers. “Research like this is an important part of understanding the role of nutrition in health and may also help people identify foods that are both nutritious and accessible -- helping people stay healthy for the long term.”

Plenty of risks

A number of recent studies have explored the health risks that come with consuming processed foods that many consumers may not be aware of. Researchers have found that a popular food additive found in processed foods and meats can actually influence the effectiveness of the flu vaccine.

“If you get a vaccine, but part of the immune system doesn’t learn to recognize and fight off virus-infected cells, then this can cause the vaccine to be less effective,” said researcher Robert Freeborn.

Moreover, researchers have found that highly processed foods can increase consumers’ risk of cancer, and even in small amounts can lead to an early death.

Money can be a stressful topic for many consumers, but according to a new study conducted by researchers from Iowa State University, getting a crash course at an early age could have life-long benefits.

The researchers discovered that when consumers are exposed to banking in their communities from an early age, the knowledge lasts with them beyond their childhood years.

“The fact that this has a lingering impact is important, because people don’t have a lot of control over where they grow up,” said researcher James Brown. “I remember growing up right across the street from a bank and going with my dad to open my first account. But a lot of people grow up in an environment where banks are not visible and it’s not as easy to connect to a financial institution at a young age.”

Getting a head start

To see how local banking affected consumers’ financial literacy later in life, the researchers explored credit history data for Native Americans living on reservations controlled by state courts and those living on tribal-run reservations.

In addition to credit scores and banking history, the researchers also surveyed those living on the reservations to assess their knowledge of typical financial matters and determine their feelings about banking and finances.

Reservations that are headed by tribes were found to have 20 percent fewer banks per capita than those that were controlled by the state, and the researchers believe that these findings can extend to other communities lacking banks.

The researchers found that exposure to banks led to strikingly different financial outcomes, as the residents on the tribal-led reservation had credit scores that were seven to 10 points lower than their counterparts. Participants on these reservations were also 20 percent less likely to have a credit report.

The researchers found that lower credit scores affected residents’ annual income by as much as $6,000.

Conversely, being exposed to banking at an earlier age pushed consumers to not only have better financial stability, but also have more trust in banks and the financial system at large. They found that high schools that mandate courses in financial literacy helped prep young people for their future finances.

Overall, the researchers emphasized that early exposure to banking plays a large role in where consumers can expect to see their bank accounts later in life.

“Exposure and trust go together,” said Brown. “If you grow up in an environment with more banks, you’re more inclined to trust banks and the financial system. If you grow up in a financial services desert, you’re much less likely to trust financial institutions, which may be one reason you don’t engage or you don’t pay back your credit card bills with the same frequency.”

Patience, patience, patience

Despite an overwhelming percent of consumers reporting their confidence in their finances for 2019, a study from last year found that 40 percent of adults don’t have enough money saved in case of an emergency.

“The finding that four in 10 adults couldn’t cover an unexpected $400 expense without selling something or borrowing money is troubling,” said Greg McBride, Bankrate.com’s chief financial analyst. “Nothing is more fundamental to achieving financial stability than having savings that can be drawn upon when the unexpected occurs.”

Saving money can be difficult for a lot of consumers, and according to experts at Duke University, patience is the key. The researchers’ biggest piece of advice is that consumers should focus more on the reward that will come in the future as opposed to what’s lacking in the present.

“The way a decision is approached matters,” said researcher Dianna Amasino. “Focusing on the long wait to accumulate savings can feel overwhelming. Focusing on the returns to savings and investments can be motivating.”

The economy is humming, unemployment is near record lows, but the American consumer is in fragile financial condition, according to the latest research.

A University of Chicago study found 51 percent of working adults could not miss more than one paycheck and still cover basic necessities. Another 15 percent would experience hardship after two missed paychecks.

The smaller those paychecks are, the more they would be missed, researchers found. Two-thirds of households earning less than $30,000 a year would not be able to purchase necessities if they missed a paycheck.

“Even short disruptions in pay can cause significant hardship, as most Americans appear to be living paycheck-to-paycheck,” said Angela Fontes, director of the Behavioral and Economic Analysis and Decision-making (BEAD) program at NORC at the University of Chicago. “The issue is particularly salient for Hispanic and for low-income households, where the vast majority of these households would need to begin depleting savings, if they have any, sooner.”

Resorting to expensive loans

When households miss a paycheck, they often turn to expensive, and even dangerous forms of financing. Nearly half said they would put expenses on a credit card. Even more alarming to researchers, 17 percent said they would turn to a payday or car title loan.

With interest rates in the 400 to 800 percent range, the researchers warn that turning to these short-term loans as a substitute for regular income can be costly.

The study appears to confirm previous research that suggests American consumers are not well positioned to deal with even a short interruption in income. A year ago, the Federal Reserve reported that four in 10 consumers don’t have enough money in savings to cover an unexpected $400 car repair bill.

Based on answers to a series of questions, two in five adults faced what the Federal Reserve called “a high likelihood of material hardship,” meaning they would have trouble paying for food, rent, and utilities.

Earlier this week a report from brokerage firm Charles Schwab found 62 percent of millennials believed they were living paycheck-to-paycheck and only 38 percent felt “financially stable.”

Even so, this generation also admitted to spending an average of $478 a month on “nonessential” purchases, more than all other age groups.

The study showed millennials cited social media platforms as the biggest “bad influence” in how they manage money. According to the survey, three in five Americans pay more attention to how their friends spend compared to how they save.

The spring rise in gasoline prices usually peaks on Memorial Day weekend, but prices appear to be falling a week early this year.

The AAA Fuel Gauge Survey shows the national average price of regular gas is $2.86 per gallon, down nearly two cents in the last seven days. It’s four cents cheaper than at this time a year ago.

The average price of premium gas is $2.43, down a penny from last Friday. The average price of diesel fuel is $3.09, also a penny lower than last week.

The principal reason for the early drop in prices at the pump is a significant decline in consumer demand. Motorists simply aren’t filling up as often as they did in the late winter and early spring. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) latest market report showed demand for gasoline dropped to 9.1 million barrels a day last week, a consumption level most likely to be seen during the fall or winter.

Gasoline demand was down 800,000 barrels a day from the previous week and 400,000 barrels a day lower than this time last year. In fact, a reading this low hasn’t been seen for early May since 2015. Analysts attribute part of the decline to nasty weather in the Rockies and Midwest that may have kept some motorists at home.

While prices continued their slow decline, there were some notable exceptions. The average price rose four cents a gallon in Utah and Idaho. Three states -- Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina -- are tied for the lowest average price in the nation.

The states with the most expensive regular gas

These states currently have the highest prices for regular gas, according to the AAA Fuel Gauge Survey:

• California ($4.05)

• Hawaii ($3.64)

• Washington ($3.54)

• Oregon ($3.43)

• Nevada ($3.49)

• Alaska ($3.46)

• Utah ($3.20)

• Idaho ($3.20)

• Arizona ($3.15)

• Pennsylvania ($3.01)

The states with the cheapest regular gas

The survey found these states currently have the lowest prices for regular gas:

• Alabama ($2.47)

• Louisiana ($2.47)

• South Carolina ($2.47)

• Mississippi ($2.48)

• Arkansas ($2.52)

• Tennessee ($2.55)

• Missouri ($2.56)

• Oklahoma ($2.56)

• Texas ($2.57)

• Virginia ($2.59)

Volkswagen Group of America (Audi) is recalling 12,645 model year 2018-2019 Audi Q5s and SQ5s.

The brake master cylinder casting may be too short, causing a sudden loss of brakes, increasing the risk of crash.

The electronic parking brake and its emergency brake function are not affected and will still function.

What to do

Audi has notified owners, and dealers will inspect the brake master cylinder, replacing it as necessary free of charge.

The recall began May 3, 2019.

Owners may contact Audi customer service at 1-800-253-2834. Audi's number for this recall is 47O9.

MIBO Fresh Foods of Fort Worth, Texas, is recalling approximately 1,460 pounds of salad with ham and turkey.

The product contains anchovies, an allergen not declared on the label.

There are no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.

The following ready-to-eat items, produced on May 10 and May 13, 2019, is being recalled:

• 9.65 oz. clear plastic packages containing “H.E.B. MEAL SIMPLE CHEF SALAD with Homestyle Ranch Dressing” and “Best By” dates of 05-18-19 and 05-20-19 represented on the label.

The recalled product, bearing establishment number “EST. P-27399” inside the USDA mark of inspection, was shipped to retail stores in Texas. ­

What to do

Customers who purchased the recalled product should not consume it, but discard or return it to the place of purchase.

Consumers with questions about the recall may contact Debbie Patterson at (817) 882-9600.

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing is recalling 564 model year 2019 Lexus ES vehicles.

The vehicles are equipped with a driver knee airbag assembly mounted to the lower instrument panel (IP) that may have been improperly installed, possibly affecting the deployment of the knee airbag in the event of a crash.

There is an increased risk of injury if the knee airbag does not deploy properly in the event of a crash.

What to do

Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect and replace the driver knee airbag assembly, if necessary free of charge.

The recall is expected to begin in May 2019.

Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-800-255-3987. Toyota's numbers for this recall are KLD and KLE.

Security researchers from Graz University of Technology have discovered a new set of vulnerabilities affecting all Intel chips made since 2011. The “Zombieload” bug, as it’s dubbed, and three related vulnerabilities allow hackers to steal sensitive data directly from a user’s processor.

The latest flaws were discovered by the same researchers who uncovered the Spectre and Meltdown bugs last year. The researchers said Zombieload bears many similarities to those bugs.

“While programs normally only see their own data, a malicious program can exploit the fill buffers to get hold of secrets currently processed by other running programs,” the researchers said. “These secrets can be user-level secrets, such as browser history, website content, user keys, and passwords, or system-level secrets, such as disk encryption keys.”

Up to each user to decide what to do

Almost all computers with Intel chips dating back to 2011 are affected by the recently discovered vulnerabilities.

Though there currently aren’t any reports of hackers exploiting the flaw, Apple said users should disable hyper-threading processing technology in order to mitigate the risk of an attacker taking advantage of the Zombieload vulnerabilities.

"Although there are no known exploits affecting customers at the time of this writing, customers with computers at heightened risk or who run untrusted software on their Mac can optionally enable full mitigation to prevent harmful apps from exploiting these vulnerabilities," Apple said on its support page. "Full mitigation requires using the Terminal app to enable an additional CPU instruction and disable hyper-threading processing technology."

However, fixing the flaw can slow down a system by as much as 40 percent, according to internal testing by Apple.

The average person “won't need to take such extreme measures to protect their computers, but certain at-risk users, like government employees and business executives, might want to take the precaution,” according to technology website Tom’s Guide.

Intel said in a statement that it’s “not recommending that Intel HT be disabled, and it’s important to understand that doing so does not alone provide protection against [Microarchitectural Data Sampling].”

“We’ve provided more information on our website and continue to encourage everyone to keep their systems up to date, as it’s one of the best ways to stay protected,” Intel said.

President Trump has declared a national emergency, forbidding U.S. companies from using overseas telecommunications companies that are believed to be a national security risk to the United States.

The executive order did not specifically name a country but those reading between the lines saw “China” in large letters. And in China, the order appears to be aimed at the country’s largest telecom provider, Huawei.

With its close ties to the Chinese military, Huawei has long been suspected of being used for surveillance, a charge the company has consistently denied.

The White House issued a statement saying the president’s order is designed to "protect America from foreign adversaries who are actively and increasingly creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology infrastructure and services."

“Protecting America’s communications networks is vital to our national, economic, and personal security,” Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said in a statement. “I, therefore, applaud the President for issuing this Executive Order to safeguard the communications supply chain. Given the threats presented by certain foreign companies’ equipment and services, this is a significant step toward securing America’s networks.”

‘Risk to national security’

With the executive order, the Secretary of Commerce has the authority to "prohibit transactions posing an unacceptable risk to the national security."

The move against foreign telecoms comes just as the U.S. and China are ratcheting up tension in their ongoing trade war. On Monday China retaliated with a new round of tariffs on the U.S. after President Trump raised the tariff on $200 billion in Chinese imports. China said it would increase tariffs on $60 billion in U.S. imports, primarily agricultural products.

As the economic ping-pong game continues, the President has held out the possibility of increasing tariffs on another $300 billion in Chinese imports.

The two nations appeared to be headed toward a trade agreement a week ago when talks broke down. The main sticking point revolves around how any trade agreement between the two countries would be enforced.

The U.S. is demanding that reforms in Chinese trade policy be written into Chinese law. Specifically, the U.S. wants China to pledge not to steal U.S. intellectual property. The Chinese government has refused to put that into its laws.

Does cutting the cable cord still make sense? The verdict on that is a while in coming, but the provider market is getting very crowded.

On Thursday, SubscriptionInsider reported that NBCUniversal will join streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, CBS All Access, and Disney+ starting in 2020, but it will give the direct-to-consumer model its own spin.

Specifically, NBC’s ad-supported service will be free to consumers who pay for live TV. As far as what constitutes “live TV,” a regular cable TV subscription such as Spectrum or Comcast should do the trick. So will a satellite service like DirecTV (owned by AT&T).

However, for those who are all-out cord-cutters, NBC’s streaming service will run about $10 a month, but -- and there’s always a but, isn’t there? -- those subscribers will not have access to television shows that play at a pre-scheduled time (“live linear” channels) or same-season shows.

That $10 price tag could change at any time. According to CNBC, Comcast’s original plan was to price the NBCUniversal streaming service for about $12 a month. Then, Disney -- a new player in the streaming game -- priced its new service at $6.99 per month. So, it was either proceed or recede for Comcast, and it decided to lower the price.

To add more drama to this can of worms, Disney took control of Hulu from Comcast this week, which put NBCUniversal in a position of having to up its rate on Hulu, decide whether it wants to still have some of its content on Hulu, and what price it’ll charge if it chooses that option. NBC has three years to make that decision.

If Hulu seems to be at the heart of a lot of these deals, it is. Earlier this year, Spotify offered Hulu as a free add-on to new premium subscribers and students.

This dance is far from over

As you can see, this whole cut-the-cord dance is a) far from something the consumer knows what they’re getting from whom; and b) very complicated.

In addition to Hulu, NBCUniversal, Disney, and Comcast, there’s an entire army of other services wanting consumers’ love: Roku, Amazon’s Prime Video, Netflix, YouTube TV, PhiloTV, PlutoTV, FuboTV, PlayStation Vue, and Apple. The Apple TV app was rolled out to 100+ countries earlier this week via an app that works on Phone, iPad, Apple TV, and select Samsung smart TVs. An AppleTV+ app offering original shows and movies will debut this fall.

Puzzled?

The complication is deciding which streams/channels you really want. One can easily tap into upgrades like HBO, Starz, et al on many of the services, but things get knotty after that.

If you want to subscribe to, say, a service that has your primetime favorites as well as a specific sports channel, you might find yourself subscribing to multiple services. At that point, cobbling all your preferences together could cost you more than you’re paying from a single cable or satellite provider.

“In trying to simplify streaming video sign-ups, these … services have created new complications,” writes Jared Newman, TechHive’s Cord-Cutter Confidential blogger.

Not only do they all make blanket promises like “anywhere,” “anytime,” “unlimited access,” “exclusives,” and “something for everyone,” but Newman points out that there’s also an infinite parade of long-tail stuff like NickHits and Secret Golf that the consumer automatically gets as part of their subscription.

“Each service has a different set of features, along with different restrictions on which devices you can use. They can also be more expensive than individual apps that offer annual subscriptions. And because the biggest streaming services don’t support these Channels marketplaces at all, you still have to deal with multiple apps and billing systems in the end.”

Newman says that if the TV networks are going to befuddle the consumer, then the consumer might want to play the “free trial” game in return.

“With all these new subscription marketplaces comes the ability to burn up more free trials,” Newman said. “Just sign up for a trial to HBO via Amazon Channels, cancel immediately, and enjoy your free week of binge-watching ‘Barry.’ Rinse and repeat with Apple TV Channels and Roku Premium Subscriptions, and then move on down the line to other services like Showtime and Starz.”

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) director Kathy Kraniger says the Education Department is hindering access to information that is crucial to helping regulators properly oversee student loan companies, NPR reported.

In a letter to Democratic senators released Thursday by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D - Mass.), Kraniger said that “student loan servicers have declined to produce information requested by the Bureau for supervisory examinations” related to federal student loans since December 2017.

Kraniger said student loan servicers are withholding the information because the Department of Education, headed by Secretary Betsy DeVos, has directed them not to share the information over “privacy” concerns.

‘Disturbing’ revelation

Warren and several other Democratic Senators called Kraninger’s disclosure “disturbing” in a letter to student loan servicers.

"This is disturbing news. It reveals that the Department, under Secretary DeVos, has removed a key weapon from CFPB's arsenal to fight illegal behavior and mistreatment of borrowers by student loan servicers, and that federal student loan servicers, who are paid by the federal government, are ignoring federal regulators' request for information," the lawmakers wrote.

"It also appears to indicate that -- at a time when independent watchdogs have identified major and ongoing compliance problems with the student loan program and the failure of the Department to adequately oversee the program -- servicers have been complicit in these efforts,” the senators continued.

The lawmakers added that no "guidance" from the Department of Education "can absolve servicers of their legal responsibility to comply with state and federal consumer protection law.” The senators are seeking to learn about instances of obstruction since December 2017 by having student loan companies provide answers to a series of questions by May 28, 2019.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must speed up its review of the health impact of electronic cigarettes.

The ruling represents a victory for public health groups, who last year sued the agency after its delay in regulating e-cigarette products gave way to a rise in vaping among teens.

The groups that filed the lawsuit included the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, and the heart and lung associations.  

Lack of regulation in the industry

In the complaint, the groups expressed deep concern that the FDA’s lack of written rules and product standards in the e-cigarette industry could threaten to get a new generation of Americans addicted to nicotine.

"It is now the FDA's responsibility to take immediate action to protect our kids and require manufacturers to apply to the FDA if they want to keep their products on the market," the groups said in a statement.

The lawsuit centers around the fact that the FDA postponed its review of the impact of e-cigarettes by several years -- a move that Maryland U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm, who issued the ruling, called “so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.”

For its part, the agency has argued that both its staff and manufacturers need more time to prepare for regulation. Grimm has ordered the FDA to submit plans for speeding up the review process within two weeks.

The opioid epidemic continues to affect consumers of all ages, and now researchers from Penn State are exploring how expectant mothers using these drugs could be affecting their unborn babies.

The researchers learned that babies who were exposed to opioids in the womb are much more sensitive to pain in the days immediately following birth. They say affected children typically require extra care and attention.

“These babies are responding to pain differently than babies who were not exposed, so maybe we should be paying attention to pain management earlier,” said researcher Dr. Christiana Oji-Mmuo. “If we have to do a painful procedure like a heel lance, we may have to provide extra comforting measures, both during the procedure and after if they continue to be stressed.”

Focusing on pain management

To see how opioid exposure affected newborns’ pain tolerance after birth, the researchers had 22 newborns with prenatal opioid exposure and 15 newborns without opioid exposure participate in the study.

“We wanted to see if two different tests -- skin conductance measures and facial reactions to pain -- would correlate and predict withdrawal in newborns, because we really need accurate ways to assess these babies,” Dr. Oji-Mmuo said.

The skin conductance test was used to determine the skin’s response to pain or stress. A second test involved researchers video recording babies during a routine heel stick blood test to assess for physical signs of pain or distress.

The effects of prenatal opioid exposure were evident to the researchers, as the babies who were exposed not only had stronger physical reactions to pain but also had issues calming down after the procedure was over and they were tucked safely in their bassinets.

“Even after the painful procedure was over, they continued to have higher skin conductance,” Dr. Oji-Mmuo said. “Even when the procedure was done and they’d been swaddled, they continued to have these higher measures compared to the babies who hadn’t been exposed to opioids.”

According to Dr. Oji-Mmuo, the majority of babies who are exposed to opioids in the womb are born with a condition known as neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), which can cause irritability, seizures, fever, trouble eating, sweating, and more.

The key is to “recognize babies who are going through withdrawal very early,” said Dr. Oji-Mmuo, who hopes that better tools for identifying babies with NAS will be developed so doctors can better treat newborns who are born with the condition.

Keeping children safe

Though this study focuses on newborns, the youngest demographic is at a serious risk of being affected by opioids, as one recent study has found that opioid poisonings among youth have nearly tripled in the last 20 years.

Despite this and countless other risks, many parents are still in favor of doctors prescribing their kids opioids for pain relief.

The researchers urge parents that opioids are never the only option for kids, and they should consult with their doctor about what the best course of treatment is in each individual case.

“Opioids may not always be the best option. It really depends on the type of surgery and how long they are required,” said Dr. Linda J. Mason. “It is, however, important for parents to know that there are many alternatives available that are as -- or more -- safe and effective for pain management. But only about a third of parents whose children were prescribed opioids even asked their doctor about pain management alternatives.”

Macy’s may have recorded a spectacular first-quarter profit report, but the retailer’s CEO has some sobering news for consumers. As tariffs on China rise, so will prices in many U.S. retail stores.

Quite unexpectedly, Macy’s reported earnings that topped Wall Street’s most optimistic forecasts, riding the strength of its online sales and showing that it can swim with the Amazon shark.

The company credited a makeover at many of its stores and the growing popularity of its mobile app for a large part of the turnaround. But the big question is whether Macy’s and all U.S. retailers can keep growing their profits during the extended and growing trade war between the U.S. and China. A huge number of retail products, after all, come from China.

Apparel and accessories could be going up

Macy’s CEO Jeff Gennette, delivering the good news about profits, also suggested that consumers will face higher prices at most retail stores, especially for shoes and clothing. He said a 25 percent tariff on $300 billion in Chinese imports threatened by the White House would almost certainly make those items more expensive for consumers.

“When you do the math, it’s hard to find a path through that wouldn’t impact customers,” Gennette said. “It will affect a lot of apparel and accessories categories.”

Gennette said the latest increase in tariffs, from 10 percent to 25 percent on $200 billion in Chinese imports, has already made Macy’s furniture more expensive and put a dent in sales.

The National Retail Federation (NRF) says adding tariffs to more Chinese products will raise prices on what U.S. consumers buy. Karlie Frank, manager of Communications and Public Affairs at NRF, says the tariffs’ effects don’t stop there.

“When faced with tariffs, companies are forced to cut costs elsewhere in their business to stay afloat,” Frank wrote in the NRF blog. “Ultimately, tariffs can mean lower wages, fewer employees, deferred investments and higher prices for consumers. Small businesses are particularly vulnerable since they don’t have the resources and flexibility to quickly switch suppliers.”

The NRF says it has received a number of stories about the negative impact the tariffs are having on small business. It says a company in Ohio that makes bicycles told the organization that the tariffs hurt because it purchases its bike frames from China.