CreditCards.com reports that FICO announced it changed its mind during Congressional testimony yesterday.

Back in the day, adding an authorized user to your account was mainly used by parents to help their kids develop better credit scores. As the housing bubble ramped up, private credit score boosting companies would "rent" authorized user slots to strangers with poor credit so they could qualify for loans they shouldn't have. It was a contributing factor to the subprime meltdown. When FICO developed a new scoring system, FICO 08, in direct response to the credit checking industry's failure to accurately check and score credit, they said they were going to kill piggbyacking.

"Fortunately, we were able to come up with technology that makes it much harder to game the system," said Mike Campbell, FICO COO.

That's good news for responsible consumers looking to get better rates on their credit cards, mortgages, and other loans.

'Piggybacking' gets stay of execution from FICO [CreditCards.com]
(Photo: Special*Dark)

Charter had planned to begin the program as early as this month in the test markets: Fort Worth; San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Oxford, Mass.; and Newtown, Conn.

Earlier Tuesday, Connecticut’s attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, released a letter calling on Charter to drop the plan. A Charter spokeswoman, Anita Lamont, said the decision to do so was unrelated to Mr. Blumenthal’s letter.

Update:On the New York Times' "Bits" blog, Charter admits they're not ending the program—just postponing it until the heat's off:

Anita Lamont, a spokeswoman for Charter, said the company wanted to take stock of “customer concerns about privacy.” Its executives, she said, were “just wanting to make sure everybody was comfortable.” Ms. Lamont said that Charter hopes to proceed with the system at some point in the future, but she wouldn’t say when.

“This is something we would move forward with when we think it’s time,” she said.

"Charter Won’t Track Customers’ Web Use" [New York Times]
"Charter Suspends Plan To Sell Customer Data to Advertisers" [Bits - New York Times]
(Photo: Getty)

This letter is in reference to my purchase of a 160GB Ipod Classic from the Brick, NJ Costco (store #229) on March 29th.  While the packaging and box indicate a 160GB device, I discovered that the box actually contained a 60GB Ipod.  I seek a full refund on my purchase and an apology from the store’s general manager, Leonard for my treatment.

Only one hour after purchasing the Ipod, I opened the box in my apartment in the presence of my girlfriend.   To be certain that the capacity of the device was in fact only 60GB, I downloaded Itunes and plugged the Ipod into my computer.  Itunes confirmed the device’s capacity was only 60GB.  Upon discovering the error, I immediately went back to the store and explained my dilemma.  The issue was quickly escalated to Leonard, the store’s general manager. Before I could even begin to explain what happened, Leonard told me in a stern and knowing voice that “this Ipod did not come from this box”.  He accused me of going home, switching the Ipod with one that I had previously owned, and was attempting to con Costco for a better Ipod.  I felt as if I was being scolded by a teacher in middle school.  I was insulted and humiliated.  I’ve never been accused of committing a crime in my life.  After a few minutes of trying to explain the situation to Leonard, it was evident that his mind had been made up before he even began to talk to me, and my efforts to convince him were fruitless.  I can’t help but think that if my girlfriend or mother were the one returning an Ipod that they bought, they would have been treated differently.  I believe the general manager saw a young man and assumed I was trying to pull a fast one.  Rather than having my issue addressed, I was embarrassed, accused of committing a crime, and escorted out of the store.  

I know from working in customer service that the customer isn’t really always right, and there are plenty of deceitful people out there who would try to pull a scam like this, but I believe that a loyal customer with a perfect track record, who has never returned anything to Costco, deserves the benefit of the doubt in situation like this.  I should not be guilty until proven innocent.  I am NOT a thief.  I am an IT professional and make a decent enough living that I do not have to scam my local Costco to get an upgraded Ipod. Never in my life have I been treated like this at a retail establishment

From talking with Apple (case # XXX) I’ve learned that the Ipod that was in my box is a 60GB Video Ipod (the serial # is XXX) that is not in production any more.  The serial number on the box that I have (for a 160GB Black Ipod Classic) is XXX.  It is also of note that Apple told me that neither of these Ipods has been registered with Itunes, which I believe indicates that neither Ipod has ever been used.   

I honestly have no idea how that particular Ipod got in the box that I opened.  It was shrink-wrapped when I opened it and I did not notice any obvious tampering with the box or contents. (the pouch with the earplugs was unopened).   I’m not sure if Apple is at fault or if it is the misdeed of some warehouse worker along the way who switched out Ipods and re-shrink-wrapped the package.  But I do not believe it is my responsibility to figure that out.  I just want what I paid my hard earned money for and an apology from Leonard, the general manager for treating me like a thief instead of a customer.  Thanks for your assistance in resolving this matter.

Here are some pics

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/5670/contentswl0.jpg

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4096/contents2dt2.jpg

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/1607/ipodaq4.jpg

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/5575/wrapzu1.jpg

-SeanMac23

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/26/not-over-yet-ebay-buyer-still-trying-to-get-m3-from-bmw-dealer/

Google gets nothing....just affirming rumors that Mountain View wasn't in it to win it, it just wanted to make sure the reserve price was met and open access rules were assured.

Many entries are mediocre, if not downright bad, and sifting through them requires full-time attention. And even the most well-known brands often spend millions of dollars up front to get the word out to consumers.

The High Price of Creating Free Ads [NYT]
Top This TV [YouTube]
(Photo: cloudzilla)

The internet is magical. Bringing companies and consumers closer than ever before. — BEN POPKEN

HSBC [Maulleigh's Place]

The YouTube user experience continues to downgrade with the removal of a 19yr old's solo dancehall videos.

Though no naughty bits showed, the Jenny Kendrick's cocking buttocks and swaying legs proved too much for YouTube users. They flagged the videos as inappropriate so many times, Jenny's account and videos were removed.

Perhaps YouTube needs an electoral college system?

Indeed, the power of the maddening crowds can create many things, but they can also trample destroy the most precious flowers.

If young women want to degrade themselves for countless millions, let them.

Jenny Kendrick: Too Hot For YouTube? [Fleshbot]

Step 1: You give Amazon money.
Step 2: They let you download a video.
Step 3: You keep updating their software or they can delete your content.

Wait, what? It seems that Amazon is just selling you a license, which can be revoked. At any time. For any reason. You relinquish your privacy and the control of your hard drive, only to pay for an episode of CSI: Miami you could watch for free.

According to BoingBoing, "Amazon Unbox takes away your privacy and every conceivable consumer right you have, and then tells you that the goods you buy from them don't belong to you, and they can take them away from you at any time, or change the deal you get from them without any appeal by you."

By the way, did I mention that a DVD Quality Movie is $14.99? Well then. I'll just Tivo. Oh wait. Nevermind.

So just in case you're an AOL customer and were exposed by the data leak, they've put together a step-by-step instruction guide on contacting AOL, ascertaining the extent of your exposure and a list of talking points to make sure AOL knows just how much they fucked up.

If you call AOL, please be sure to fill in the EFF's call log, so they can keep AOL on their toes about their culpability for this mess.

Were You Exposed by AOL's Data Leak? [EFF]

Well, yes, we do. But first of all, the information is already out there — we can't ignore it. Furthermore, we're confident no one's going to be able to figure out who the "Do niggers have X-Ray vision?" guy is, because he hasn't searched for any personal information. On the other hand, we certainly wouldn't post the user records of some granny who searched for her credit card or social security number via AOL. Mostly because that's just not funny, but also because we wouldn't want to help get her identity stolen.

That said, many people do search for their credit card numbers, social security numbers or names to see if they've somehow been leaked to the web. Ironically, these people have now had all of the information they most feared leaked to the internet. Right now, hundreds of identity thieves are doubtlessly scanning AOL's logs, looking for such information. Which is why this is such a nightmare, not only for AOL's users but a company whose violation of users trust has been exposed time and time again over the past few months.

If you're wondering what AOL's search gaffe means for you and what potential dangers there are, as well as ways to protect yourself from similar leaks in the future, Wired News has posted an excellent primer on the subject.

AOL's Search Gaffe and You [Wired]

• AolStalker seems to have a smart search system and you can drill down to individual user profiles. The best of the bunch.
• AOLSearchDatabase gives the most comprehensive information. Too bad they didn't load all the data in.
• DontDelete's best feature is its Random User button. "HOURS of entertainment."
• AOLsearch displays specific user ID search results.
• AOL.Yogurtrat has a pretty good search and we enjoy the way the results are displayed.
• AOLSearchLogs lets you search by keyword or user ID. Pretty fast but you have to tab through long returns.

For the money, use AOL Stalker. If you know the user you're looking for, use AOL Search and just change around the ID number at the end.

UPDATE: Here's a powerful "Splunk'd" database of the AOL info. It looks daunting at first but in the end, this wins hands down as the best! [via BoingBoing]

Her searches included "numb fingers," "60 single men" and "dog that urinates on everything."

"Those are my searches," she said, after a reporter read part of the list to her."

You can tell the NYT editor's directives were "Ok, ID someone but make sure their results are totally innocuous, you know, fit to print."

(Thanks to Andrew!)

Wow! User-generated content is an awesome way for companies to harness the inherent marketing potential of the internet!

Forget the privacy issues. AOL leaking its search records is the best thing to hit Internet comedy perhaps ever. Thanks, AOL! You're the fuck-up that keeps on giving.

Confessions of AOL Users: Vol. 1 [YTMND]

Dear Consumerist,

I'm writing for help with Amazon's "Your Lists" feature. I don't object to Amazon's attempt to get me to want/buy more by creating ever more wish lists. I do object, however, to the Wedding List. I am a lesbian, and cannot get married in 49 of the 50 states. Seeing that Wedding List prompt every time I visit Amazon is like being greeted with a hot stick in the eye. Could you please prevail on Amazon to introduce a "turn off" switch for the Wedding List?

Thank you,

Teresa Ortega

What do you say, Amazon, a little help for the ladies who like ladies? Or anyone who doesn't want to be reminded of the matrimonial bliss they could be purchasing right now in the very near future?

Demographic targeting only works if the population slice is smaller than a breadbox warehouse.