Cuomo’s Helping Hand to NY for Toyota Recall

February 24th, 2010. By AbiK

This just in…been affected by the Toyota recall mess and live in New York? NY State Attorney General Cuomo’s got your back—at least when it comes to making the process of getting your car repaired a bit easier.

According to nypost.com this morning, Toyota has agreed to guarantee New Yorkers who’ve been thrown into the recall mess the following:

• Pick up of the vehicle at the owner’s home
• Return the vehicle after it’s been repaired
• Pay for out-of-pocket transportation costs
• Offer drivers free rental cars during repairs

That’s good news especially considering the number of emails and comments we’ve received from Toyota drivers who are concerned about driving their cars–even to the dealership–until the repairs are made. Cuomo, himself, gave a nod to this very issue in his prepared statement:

“It is unacceptable that New York consumers should face additional burdens when dealing with a safety problem that is Toyota’s responsibility,” Cuomo said in a prepared statement obtained by the AP before a scheduled noon announcement. “New Yorkers who own recalled vehicles understandably may be reluctant to drive their cars and assume the risk of harm to themselves and others on the road.”

If you’re in NY and you’ve got a recalled Toyota sitting in your drive, there’s also a website that’s been set up to provide further information: nytoyotahelp.com.

Big Brother Goes to School

February 22nd, 2010. By LucyC

As webcams become an increasingly common tool used for public safety and crime prevention, the irony appears to be that those doing the watching are the ones that need to be watched most, as a class action lawsuit filed last week so clearly illustrates. 

The federal lawsuit was filed by the parents of a fifteen-year old boy who was told by an assistant principal at the school he attends that he “was engaged in improper behavior in his home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor plaintiff’s personal laptop issued by the school district,” Courthouse news reported last week. How on earth did this assistant principal know that? And who is he to decide what is improper behavior in the youth’s home? 

What happened? The answer is pretty creepy. The Lower Merion School District in Pennsylvania issued laptops with webcams to 1800 high school students as part of an initiative to “enhance opportunities for ongoing collaboration, and ensure that all students have 24/7 access to school based resources and the ability to seamlessly work on projects and research at school and at home.” What’s that expression—never look a gift horse in the mouth? Read on. 

As it turns out, it wasn’t just the students that had 24/7 access to the laptops and ‘interconnectivity’. The webcams could be remotely activated by the school authorities at any time they chose, enabling them to “view and capture whatever images were in front of the webcam, all without the knowledge, permission or authorization of any persons then and there using the laptop computer,” the lawsuit reportedly states. 

Wait—there’s more. “Additionally, by virtue of the fact that the webcam can be remotely activated at any time Read the rest of this entry »

A Facebook Lawsuit in Miami

February 22nd, 2010. By Hunter West

Okay, so here’s the deal. A high school student—an honors student, no less—is at odds with her teacher. They just didn’t seem to get along. They clashed over assignments. It happens. But the student had to vent. So Katherine Evans created a Facebook page titled ‘Ms. Sarah Phelps in the worst teacher I’ve ever had,’ and invited current and former students of the maligned instructor to post their own comments.

Some were in support of the student. Others were in support of the teacher. With Facebook, you get what you get. The student did not control the content beyond setting the page up in the first place, and after a few days she took it down.

For all of that, the honors student was suspended from school for three days, accused of cyber-bullying.

Bullying?

Or free speech?

That’s the question. And now it’s the basis for a lawsuit, brought by Evans.

Katherine Evans is now 19 and a sophomore at the University of Florida. Beyond seeking a “nominal Read the rest of this entry »

Reminder: CARD Act goes live Monday

February 20th, 2010. By AbiK

Monday, February 22 is the day we finally see the new credit card rules go into effect. For those of you who missed all the news on this last fall, the new rules come as a result of the Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act—aka CARD Act for short.

We outlined what the CARD Act will mean to you in an earlier post—and we wrote about some of the credit card pitfalls you should look out for—but just to recap:

Limits on Interest Rate Hikes: Interest rate increases on existing balances would only be allowed under certain conditions, such as when a promotional rate ends, there is a variable rate, or if the cardholder makes a late payment. Interest rates on new transactions can increase only after the first year. Significant changes in terms on accounts cannot occur without 45 days’ advance notice of the change.

No more Universal Default: “Universal default,” when interest rates are raised based on customers’ payment records with other unrelated credit issuers (such as utility companies), would end. 

More Time to Pay Monthly Bills: Credit care issuers will have to give card account holders “a reasonable amount of time” to make payments on monthly bills. That means payments would be due at least 21 days after they are mailed or delivered.

Clear Due Dates and Times: Credit card issuers would no longer be able to set early morning or Read the rest of this entry »

You Smell: Get off the Plane

February 19th, 2010. By AbiK

We’ve all been there. Someone walks by and you catch a whiff. Maybe it’s Giorgio or Red Door layered on a little too thick…that distinct left-the-bar-at-dawn smell…or pure and simple B.O. It’s off-putting, but thankfully not lingering. Unless you’re sittin’ next to it. On a plane.

So as this story goes, regional airliner Jazz Air out of Canada “deplaned” a man for his “strong body odor”. One passenger on the Feb. 6th flight described the smell as “brutal” according to a cnn.com report. The flight was only to be about 2 hours, 21 minutes from Charlottetown to Montreal. But still. Seat back forward, baby, please return that tray table to its upright and locked position. You’re outta here.

This marks what appears to be a new rationale for deplaning a passenger—it used to be that a passenger needed to be a) drunk, b) unruly/belligerent, c) with screaming child in tow, or d) a terrorist suspect to get booted from a plane. Perhaps, too, on an overbooked flight there may have been an occasion where a double-occupancy physique couldn’t squeeze into a single-occupancy seat (hello, Kevin Smith). But for the most part, those were your options for getting kicked off the plane.

Now, I can tell you, if you’ve never experienced “brutal” bodily aromas while being held captive, you really can’t call what happened on Jazz Air either shameful or ridiculous. I’ve been there—while in a hospital bed (captive enough?)—and I can tell you it was so bad I marched my rolling I.V. stand right out to that nurses station with that pee-uw look on my face and my nose clipped shut clothespin-style with my fingers and requested a complete fumigation of the room and something for nausea. It. Was. Bad. So my sympathies lie with the other passengers on this one. But it does raise the question of just what exactly are grounds to kick someone off a plane they’ve no doubt spent hundreds—possibly thousands—to be riding the friendly skies in?

And I question what grounds may follow…halitosis? snoring? smelly feet? excessive dandruff? chatty Cathy? Sounds like a new day dawning in discrimination litigation…