BatMobile up for Auction.

Tribute to the vehicle from the 1989 Batman film comes complete with a suite of functioning crime-fighting gadgets.

Batkid has recently shown us that it's possible to transform into a superhero, if only for a day, and the smart superfan plans ahead for the day she/he might also be given an opportunity to fight crime before lunch and dispense justice for dessert.

Fortunately, aspiring Batpeople can lock down their own Batmobile to be ready the next time Gotham's chief of police puts out the Batsignal.

On November 30, a fully road-legal Batmobile will be auctioned off at Mercedes-Benz World UK by auto auctioneers Historics. This particularly bat-tastic lot is modeled on the iteration of the crime-fighting vehicle seen in Tim Burton's 1989 movie "Batman," starring Michael Keaton as the caped crusader.

Like the vehicle used in the film, this Batmobile has actual crime-fighting gadgets built in, including a working rear flame thrower, hydraulic lift, smokescreen release mechanism, front and rear cameras, and remote ignition. Admittedly, that last one was a bit more cool in 1989.

The auction house also says this Batmobile comes with low miles on its six-cylinder, fuel injected 3.2-liter Jaguar engine and automatic transmission (it's embarrassing to miss the clutch in your Batmobile, accidentally incinerating the car behind you at a stop light). It's been driven primarily just between shows and promotional events rather than tearing up Gotham's streets in hot pursuit of hardened criminals in face paint.

If you're ready to upgrade your crime-fighting capability with this vehicle, you're advised to come to the auction with at least $113,000 to $145,000 to cover the estimated value of this Batmobile, according to the auction house. Pick your jaw up off the floor. That figure is actually in line with other estimates of Batman's crime-fighting budget.

CNET News.

Facebook now makes Public

The social network's recent privacy recalculation prevents excluding your profile picture, cover photo, and other formerly hide-able information from search results.

You may have been one of the many Facebook users contacted by the company last week about the demise of the "Who can look up your Timeline by name" search setting. The Facebook e-mail announcing the discontinuation of the feature goes on to explain how to limit what information you share on the service. Unfortunately, there's no longer a way to limit globally the personal information Facebook shares with everyone; you can do so only for each separate post using the audience selector.

The Facebook Help Center states the following:

"Your name, gender, username, user ID (account number), profile picture, cover photo and networks (if you choose to add these) are available to anyone since they are essential to helping you connect with your friends and family."

Of particular concern to privacy advocates is the ability of third-party app developers to access your friends list. Last August, CNN's Katie Lobosco reported that at least one financial-lending company uses your Facebook friends list to help determine your creditworthiness.

According to Lobosco, if your friends have a history of late payments, your credit score with the company goes down. (Note that another credit company reduces the score of any applicant whose online form is completed in all caps, or without any caps.)

Prevent Facebook apps from accessing your private data
One of the tips in last September's article about how to secure your Facebook account easily, explains how to put a muzzle on nosy Facebook apps. The simplest way to enhance your Facebook privacy is to delete the apps. Unfortunately, removing an app doesn't delete the information the developer has already collected about you.]

As the Facebook Help Center's App Privacy Settings page describes, you have to contact the developer directly using Facebook's Report a Problem feature. The page states that not all apps provide a way to contact the developer.

Facebook users are installing apps from developers who help themselves to the users' private information without offering a clear mechanism for retrieving the data. Users have no way of knowing what the information includes or how it will be used, let alone whether it is accurate. Nope, no privacy risk there.

The Facebook App Settings page lets you control the information about you that friends can share when they use apps. You can uncheck any or all of the 17 categories of information presented.

Uncheck the categories of personal information you don't want your friends to be able to share with the Facebook apps they use.

(Credit: Screenshot by Dennis O'Reilly/CNET)

The App Settings page indicates that you can prevent apps and Web sites from accessing other categories of information by "turning off all Platform apps." To do so, click Edit to the right of "Apps you use" on the App Settings page, and click the Turn Off Platform button.

Privacy promises to European users come up empty
Imagine if Facebook, Google, and other services had to notify you of the information they collect about you, how the companies will use the information, the third parties they will share the information with, and how you can restrict use and disclosure of the information.

Now imagine you're given the ability to opt out of the collection and use of your information beyond what is necessary to transact your business with the companies. Even better, imagine having to opt in to the use of your personal information in any way other than the original purpose for which you supplied the information.

These are two of the seven Safe Harbor Privacy Principles that US companies agree to comply with for their customers residing in European Union countries. Export.gov provides an overview of the Safe Harbor requirements. The principles specify that individuals be afforded access to the personal information the companies collect about them and be able to correct, amend, or delete the information.

As Politico's Erin Mershon points out, the Safe Harbor Framework is intended to allow US companies to comply with the EU's stringent privacy regulations. The rules have been a sticking point in light of the National Security Agency's widespread surveillance. Some Europeans believe US firms use the Safe Harbor Framework to avoid complying with the EU's privacy requirements.

While Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Julie Brill defends the Safe Harbor Framework, EU officials point out the lack of enforcement efforts by the FTC. Safe Harbor guidelines rely on companies self-certifying, so to a great extent the framework operates on the honor system.

At a meeting last month of the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee, an executive at Galexia, an Australian management consulting firm that researches Safe Harbor compliance, highlighted the program's lax enforcement. According to InfoSecurity, Galexia's Chris Connolly told the committee that 427 US companies make false claims about their Safe Harbor compliance.

A more-widespread compliance shortcoming relates to the Safe Harbor regulations' dispute-resolution requirements. Connolly testified that about 30 percent of the 3,000 self-certifying organizations offer no dispute-resolution options, and a large number of those companies that claim to provide dispute resolution, instead refer customers to the American Arbitration Association, which charges complainants from $120 to $1,200 per hour, with a minimum of 4 hours, on top of a $950 administration fee.

Some EU officials are calling for the cancellation of the Safe Harbor program, which has been in place for 13 years. Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission and EU justice commissioner, spoke at a seminar in Washington, D.C., late last month and recommended the only way for the US to restore Europe's trust is to enact privacy legislation that provides EU citizens with a right of redress when their privacy is violated, as Bloomberg BNA's Stephen Gardner reported last week.

Sounds like a law US citizens could benefit from as well. In the absence of such protections, Facebook needs to follow Google's lead with Gmail and admit, once and for all, that users have no expectation of privacy when using the social network.

This story has been corrected to state that you can limit Facebook sharing on a per-post basis via the Facebook audience selector. It has also been updated to remove details about a previous EPIC complaint to the FTC about a previous Facebook policy.

CNET news.

How Walmart will fight off Amazon on Black Friday

Walmart is going all out to ensure it is the destination for this year's holiday shopping season -- whether that may be its physical or virtual store.

Late Thursday, it unveiled a dizzying array of promotions, from a lower minimum purchase to qualify for free shipping to select Black Friday doorbuster promotions -- available online ahead Thanksgiving morning. Cyber Monday -- which Walmart will naturally be starting on Saturday -- is extended to an entire week.

Its emphasis to bolster both its online and in-store promotions comes as the retailing industry deals with the impact of online giant Amazon, which has largely eaten the lunch of the traditional brick-and-mortar players. Once staid stores such as Borders and Circuit City have already shuttered, while Walmart and others have reported falling sales and profits.

Walmart, for its part, said the decisions it has made are based on its customers. In fact, Joel Anderson, CEO of Walmart.com US, spent more than 30 minutes talking about the promotions without once mentioning Amazon, even if there were hints of the online retailer in his comments.

"We follow our own playbook, which is unique," Anderson said on a conference call with reporters.

Retailers have traditionally eyed the critical Black Friday period -- which now stretches from Thanksgiving to well beyond the following Cyber Monday -- as a major source of their sales of the year. But the online component is expected to be even more vital this year, especially as traditional retailers try to go toe-to-toe with Amazon online.

In a survey held by Nielsen, 46 percent of consumers said they would shop online on Cyber Monday, up from 30 percent a year ago. In comparison, only 13 percent of respondents said they would shop at physical stores on Black Friday, down from 17 percent in 2012.

Anderson said last year's Cyber Monday was the highest grossing day online in the company's history.

Starting Friday, Walmart online customers only need to order $35 worth of goods on nearly any item to qualify for free shipping. That's the same minimum level at Amazon, which the online retailer raised by $10 in October.

Anderson denied there was any link between its new offer and Amazon's policy.

"Customers have told us shipping cost is very important in their decision," he said.

Shoppers can also upgrade to three-to-five-day shipping for $2.97, Anderson said, adding the point that no subscription fee is required -- which could be interpreted as a veiled reference to Amazon's subscription-based Prime program.

Walmart will also match the prices of competitors such as Target and Best Buy, but the company didn't mentioned Amazon.

Several Black Friday deals slated to be found in stores on Thanksgiving evening will be available on Walmart.com that morning, although Anderson warned there would be limited quantities. The decision to add the online component was to create "anytime, anywhere access" to Walmart, and dismissed concerns that the online deals would draw people away from the physical stores.

Walmart.com, meanwhile, is making its big online push starting Saturday, attempting to rebrand Cyber Monday into Cyber Week, which stretches to the following Friday.

Anderson said he opted to kick off Cyber Monday on Saturday because he saw consumer traffic to the Web site spiked that day. To better take advantage of the interest, he opted to kick things off two days in advance.

He promised a large assortment of online deals -- including one-time offers and specials -- as Cyber Week rolls along. Consumers will also be able to order online and pick it up at a nearby store.

Consumers are expected to fork over some big bucks this year. Nearly a third of consumers from all income ranges surveyed by Nielsen say the will spend between $250 and $500 this season, with 20 percent spending $500 to $1,000.

Walmart is hoping a larger share of those dollars end up heading in its direction.

 C|Net News

Samsung Electronics to pay Apple $290 million

   

Image : www.abcnews.go.com

SAN JOSE, California: A Silicon Valley jury on Thursday ordered Samsung Electronics to payApple $290 million for copying vital iPhone andiPad features. 

The verdict covers 13 older Samsung devices that a previous jury found were among 26 Samsung products that infringed Apple patents. 

The previous jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion. But US District Judge Lucy Koh ordered the new trial and tossed out $450 million of the damages after concluding the previous jury miscalculated the amount Samsung owed. 

Samsung appealed that verdict and is expected to appeal the latest verdict. 

A third trial is scheduled for March to consider Apple's claims that Samsung's newest devices on the market also copied Apple's technology. 

Apple and Samsung are the world's two biggest smartphone makers. The bitter rivals have been waging a global battle for supremacy of the $300 billion worldwide market. 

Apple has argued in courts, government tribunals and regulatory agencies around the world that Samsung's Android-based phones copy vital iPhone features. Samsung is fighting back with its own complaints that some key Apple patents are invalid and Apple has copied Samsung's technology. 

Samsung lawyer William Price argued Apple is misconstruing the breadth of its patents to include such things as the basic rectangle shape of most smartphones today. 

"Apple doesn't own beautiful and sexy," Price told the San Jose jury. 

Apple attorney William Lee told the jury that Samsung used Apple's technology to lift it from an also-ran in the smartphone market three years ago to the biggest seller of them in the world today. 

"Apple can never get back to where it should have been in 2010," Lee told the jury Tuesday at the conclusion of the weeklong trial. 

The fight in San Jose is particularly contentious. The courtroom is a 15-minute drive from Apple's Cupertino headquarters, and several prospective jurors were dismissed because of their ties to the company. 

The South Korean-based Samsung has twice sought to stop the trial, accusing Apple on Tuesday of unfairly trying to inflame patriotic passions by urging jurors to help protect American companies from overseas competitors. The judge denied Samsung's request for a mistrial, but did reread to reread an instruction ordering them to put aside their dislikes and biases in deciding the case. 

On Wednesday, Samsung again demanded a halt to the trial after the US Patent and Trademark Office told Apple it was planning to invalidate a patent protecting the "pinch-to-zoom" feature at issue in the jury's deliberation. The judge ordered more briefing while declining to stop the trial.

Times Of India.

Zuckerberg still orders teams into lockdown

CUPERTINO Calif. -- In the early days of Facebook, when schools with competing services would get the jump on the burgeoning social network with a unique feature or interesting addition, the company would go into what CEO Mark Zuckerberg called lockdown, where the team wouldn't leave the house until the problem was addressed. It still persists to this day, within reason.

Facebook doesn't lock people in the office, but it comes "as close to that as we can legally get," Zuckerberg said to an eruption from the crowd.

Zuckerberg spent his time with Y Combinator founder Paul Graham at the organizations' annual startup school event riffing in his well-rehearsed off-the-cuff interview style. It's a far cry from just a few years ago, when he'd sometimes sweat under pressure.

When at ease, Zuckerberg even conceded to the influence of "The Social Network" film with regard to the early ingredients that formed Facebook. For instance, he began his interview in typical fashion, mentioning his desire to connect people and the things he enjoys building that provide insight into that pursuit.

That was when Graham interjected, "You mean FaceSmash?" Zuckerberg then relaxed, letting slip a jab at the David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin film. "That stupid movie...," he began, before the crowd erupted and drowned out the last few words of his sentence.

"About the only thing I got from FaceSmash was I met my wife from it," Zuckerberg revealed.

After creating the female student comparison Web site at Harvard, which was glorified by "The Social Network" and controversially employed in its script as a retaliation against an ex-girlfriend, Zuckerberg says that what actually happened was that all of his friends and family were convinced he'd get thrown out of school.

"My friends were just completely positive I was going to get kicked out," he said, so they threw him a party where he would meet Priscilla Chan.

Zuckerberg reiterated that prior to Facebook and FaceSmash, he was already creating social Web sites that were getting thousands of visitors within Harvard, like one that let you peruse other students' past and current classes and one to compare annotations on classical artwork.

The conversation meandered, and Graham questioned Zuckerberg about his management style and how he'd changed over the years.

"They say more Americans are afraid of public speaking than death," Zuckerberg recounted, comparing the experience to what it was like learning how to manage an immensely fast-growing company without any prior experience. "So throw yourself in," he added. "You get over it."