Search

Walking or running: for the same distance, which consumes more energy?

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/clement-lemineur-1529211">Clément Lemineur</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/universite-cote-dazur-2917">Université Côte d’Azur</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/clement-naveilhan-1495411">Clément Naveilhan</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/universite-cote-dazur-2917">Université Côte d’Azur</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/francois-dernoncourt-1495410">François Dernoncourt</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/universite-cote-dazur-2917">Université Côte d’Azur</a> It’s Monday morning, the alarm goes off and it’s already 7:30 a.m. – and you’re 30 minutes late. Normally you need 45 minutes to walk the 3 kilometres to work, but this morning you’ll be running for 20 minutes. Yes, but by lunchtime you’re feeling more tired and you have the impression that you’ve expended more energy than usual on the trip. Yet you’ve covered the same distance as on the other days. How can this be? The calorie expenditure associated with any activity is called the “metabolic cost”, and corresponds to the energy consumed by our organs to cover a given distance. This metabolic cost can be determined by analysing the oxygen our bodies consume and the carbon dioxide they produce, we can estimate the amount of energy expended, and thus the metabolic cost. It was using this method that <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/692303/">researchers had already answered our question back in the 1970s</a>. Perhaps not surprisingly, running consumes more energy than walking for the same distance covered. But why? <h2>Energy lost when running</h2> Imagine you’re watching someone running. Now look closely at the vertical movement (up and down) of their pelvis and head. As you can see from the diagram below, when we run, the distance that our body moves up and down is greater than when we walk. To produce this vertical movement, the muscles of the lower limbs have to generate more force, and that consumes more energy, yet doesn’t bring us any closer to our destination. So when running, part of the energy expended is used to move our bodies <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16029949/">upward rather than forward</a>. The energy needed to cover those 3 km is therefore higher for running than for walking. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/602769/original/file-20240625-18-xilv63.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/602769/original/file-20240625-18-xilv63.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/602769/original/file-20240625-18-xilv63.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/602769/original/file-20240625-18-xilv63.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/602769/original/file-20240625-18-xilv63.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/602769/original/file-20240625-18-xilv63.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/602769/original/file-20240625-18-xilv63.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/602769/original/file-20240625-18-xilv63.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="Illustration of the oscillations of running and walking" /></a><figcaption>Running involves much greater vertical oscillation of the centre of mass than walking. This is the main reason why running consumes more energy than walking for the same distance covered. François Dernoncourt, Fourni par l'auteur</figcaption></figure> This difference between walking and running is not confined to what happens during the activity itself. In fact, each physical exercise causes a delayed expenditure of energy, which is added to the expenditure during the activity. Taking this into account, it’s once again running that uses more energy than walking. Immediately after running your 3 km, the increased energy consumption (compared with resting) lasts for several minutes, mainly because of the increase in body temperature and the replenishment of energy reserves. This additional expenditure after running is <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22446673/">more than twice that observed after walking</a>, due to the difference in intensity between the two exercises. <h2>It all depends on speed</h2> Running therefore involves a higher calorie expenditure than walking for the same distance covered. But this is on condition that the walking speed considered is “normal” (around 5 km/h). So, if we walk very slowly, it will take us so long to cover the 3 km that the calorie expenditure will be greater in the end. This is because the body expends a certain amount of energy per unit of time no matter what, regardless of the activity performed (known as the “basal metabolic rate”). The same applies if the walking speed is very fast (<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29925582/">more than 8 km/h</a>): running is more energy-efficient. Here, the coordination required to walk at such a speed means that we need to activate our muscles more, without being able to take advantage of the elasticity of our tendons, as is the case with running. Moreover, we have a very precise intuitive perception of the energy efficiency of a particular style of movement. If we’re on a treadmill whose speed gradually increases, the point at which we spontaneously switch from walking to running coincides with the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096663622100120X">moment when it would become more energy-consuming to walk than to run</a>. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/604700/original/file-20240703-17-4dlrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/604700/original/file-20240703-17-4dlrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/604700/original/file-20240703-17-4dlrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/604700/original/file-20240703-17-4dlrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/604700/original/file-20240703-17-4dlrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/604700/original/file-20240703-17-4dlrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/604700/original/file-20240703-17-4dlrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/604700/original/file-20240703-17-4dlrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption>Modelling of metabolic cost (kilocalories expended per kilogram per kilometre covered) as a function of speed (kilometres per hour) for walking and running. The curves cross at a certain speed (purple line; around 8 km/h): this means that above this speed, walking becomes more energy-intensive than running. It’s at around this threshold speed that people spontaneously switch from walking to running. François Dernoncourt, Adapted from Summerside et al, Fourni par l'auteur</figcaption></figure> In conclusion, because of greater oscillation of the centre of mass and increased energy expenditure after exercise, running to work is more energy-intensive than covering the same distance by walking. But remember, whether you choose to walk or run to work, the most important thing is that you’re already saving energy!<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/233943/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/clement-lemineur-1529211">Clément Lemineur</a>, Doctorant en Sciences du Mouvement Humain, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/universite-cote-dazur-2917">Université Côte d’Azur</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/clement-naveilhan-1495411">Clément Naveilhan</a>, Doctorant en Sciences du Mouvement Humain, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/universite-cote-dazur-2917">Université Côte d’Azur</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/francois-dernoncourt-1495410">François Dernoncourt</a>, Doctorant en Sciences du Mouvement Humain, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/universite-cote-dazur-2917">Université Côte d’Azur</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/walking-or-running-for-the-same-distance-which-consumes-more-energy-233943">original article</a>. </div>

Body

Plastic Free July is a waste of time if the onus is only on consumers

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bhavna-middha-1061611">Bhavna Middha</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ralph-horne-160543">Ralph Horne</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Every year, the <a href="https://www.plasticfreejuly.org/">Plastic Free July</a> campaign asks us to refuse single-use plastic. The idea is that making a small change in our daily lives will collectively make a big difference. And hopefully, better behaviour will stick and become a habit. The intent is good, but consumers shouldn’t have to bear full responsibility for plastic pollution. Individual sacrifices – particularly temporary ones – <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421509004728">won’t make a significant difference</a>. Governments, manufacturers and retailers need to get serious about tackling this problem. If Plastic Free July put pressure on the supply side of the equation, rather than demand, it could be more successful. Our research spans food packaging including plastics, waste, sustainable consumption and social practices. We know consumer demand is only one part of the picture. Eliminating plastic waste requires broader systemic changes. <h2>The cabbage dilemma</h2> Research shows consumers generally want to do the <a href="https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/news/news-articles/the-conversation-on-sustainability-has-changed">right thing by the environment</a> but find it <a href="https://theconversation.com/households-find-low-waste-living-challenging-heres-what-needs-to-change-197022">challenging</a>. Coming out of a supermarket with no packaging is difficult. There are few unpackaged food items and even when there is a choice, the unpackaged item may be more <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/want-your-fruit-and-veg-without-the-plastic-you-ll-have-to-pay-more-20231107-p5eib4.html">expensive</a>. Have you ever been stuck in the supermarket, choosing between the large head of cabbage you know you won’t finish before it goes bad, or the plastic-wrapped half-cabbage you really need? Consumers should not be forced to choose between food waste (another huge problem) or plastic waste. Maybe there’s another way. For example, why not sell cabbages of different sizes? Why do we need to grow such large heads of cabbage anyway? Both plastic consumption and food waste can be addressed by changing how we produce and distribute certain foods. <h2>Governments, manufacturers and retailers must drive change</h2> The onus for reducing plastic consumption and waste should be placed firmly on those who make plastic and profit from selling their products, as well as those who make and sell products wrapped in plastic packaging. Research has shown just <a href="https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/April/Global-study-finds-more-than-half-of-branded-plastic-pollution-linked-to-56-companies?utm_source=pocket_shared">56 companies</a> globally are responsible for more than half of the branded plastic pollution that ends up in the environment. Companies profit from using plastics because it is cheaper to use than changing to alternatives, such as cardboard or compostable materials, or using less packaging. This means companies choosing to avoid using plastics face unfair competition. It’s a tough habit to kick. Industry-led <a href="https://productstewardship.us/what-is-epr/#:%7E:text=Stewardship%20can%20be%20either%20voluntary,product%20stewardship%20required%20by%20law">voluntary schemes</a> are <a href="https://www.insidewaste.com.au/91038-2-product-stewardship-schemes/">limited in terms of both participation and outcomes</a>. Many companies are failing to meet their own <a href="https://www.asyousow.org/report-page/2024-plastic-promises-scorecard">plastic reduction goals</a>. Governments need to step in and force companies to take responsibility for the plastic and packaging they manufacture. In practice, this could involve similar schemes to the container deposit scheme for beverage containers, or returning plastics to stores. Replacing voluntary schemes with mandatory regulations and increased producer responsibility means companies will have to <a href="https://www.insidewaste.com.au/91038-2-product-stewardship-schemes/">invest in long-term changes designed with care</a>. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UnXVU-06ciI?wmode=transparent&start=1" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>What’s Plastic Free July?</figcaption></figure> <h2>Cities are built around plastic</h2> Our previous research has shown plastic performs an essential role in some, <a href="https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/geoj.12457">constrained circumstances</a>. We found vulnerable householders often rely on plastic to make life manageable, such as using plastics to cover belongings on the balcony, or using plastic cutlery and plates in student apartments with minimal kitchen space. This includes people with accessibility needs, people relying on public transport to shop for groceries, or people who are financially constrained or living in small high-rise <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-keep-putting-apartment-residents-waste-in-the-too-hard-basket-200545">apartments</a>. Unsustainable lifestyles are not so much a choice as a product of poorly planned cities, housing and regulations. It is all very well if you are mobile and well-located, but if you live in a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-08/food-deserts-have-serious-consequences-for-residents-experts/6605230">poorly serviced</a> distant suburb and <a href="https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/01/are-you-living-in-a-food-desert--these-maps-suggest-it-can-reall">transport groceries or takeaway food</a> or buy things on the go, then plastic is perhaps the only current affordable way to make it work. So campaigns and solutions that do not consider how <a href="https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/geoj.12457">everyday lives and economy</a> are intertwined with plastics can <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-024-00149-w">exclude people and spaces</a> who can’t access the alternatives. For example, there are ways to make <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-5871.12464">convenience eating more sustainable</a> in education settings. We have shown how <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-5871.12390">canteens and microwaves</a> in shared spaces can enable people to access affordable food with their friends, as in <a href="https://www.charlesabroad.cz/post/german-university-canteens-why-do-they-beat-the-czech-ones">University Mensa in Germany</a>. Our <a href="https://cur.org.au/project/tackling-food-related-single-use-plastics-in-diverse-consumption-contexts/">new research</a> will explore how single-use food-related plastics and packaging form an integral part of our daily lives, including shopping, work, cooking and storage. Sometimes new policies inadvertently disadvantage certain groups and communities, such as the aged, less mobile, people living in apartments, or low socio-economic groups. Before we roll out new policies and regulations, we need to understand the roles these materials play and the kinds of services and value they provide. We aim to develop a framework to inform policies and strategies that enable a just and inclusive transition to reduced plastic use. <h2>What about after July?</h2> Plastic Free July and similar campaigns are based on idea that making a temporary change will lead to more permanent lifestyle changes. But research shows temporary shifts are <a href="http://www.demand.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DEMAND2016_Full_paper_42-Shove.pdf">very different</a> to <a href="https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/32468813/FULL_TEXT.PDF">structural, permanent shifts</a> in <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315816494-1/introduction-social-practices-intervention-sustainability-beyond-behaviour-change-yolande-strengers-cecily-maller?context=ubx&refId=d608abad-39f9-4bb2-8754-56e9e2000c5e">practices</a>. Supermarkets will still wrap items in plastic and sell single-use plastic, even if we try to buy less during Plastic Free July. Ultimately, the focus should be on designing effective infrastructure and policy solutions for lasting results, considering how demand for plastic is produced in the first place. Some of these changes will require a shift in community expectations and food culture. Rather than pointing the finger at consumers, let’s get to work on redesigning our cities. We need to rethink how everyday practices, manufacturing and distribution systems are structured to eliminate plastic waste.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/233436/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bhavna-middha-1061611">Bhavna Middha</a>, ARC DECRA and Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ralph-horne-160543">Ralph Horne</a>, Associate Deputy Vice Chancellor, Research & Innovation, College of Design & Social Context, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/plastic-free-july-is-a-waste-of-time-if-the-onus-is-only-on-consumers-233436">original article</a>. </div>

Home & Garden

Why prices are so high – 8 ways retail pricing algorithms gouge consumers

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-tuffley-13731">David Tuffley</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> The just-released report of the inquiry into <a href="https://pricegouginginquiry.actu.org.au/">price gouging and unfair pricing</a> conducted by Allan Fels for the Australian Council of Trades Unions does more than identify the likely offenders. It finds the biggest are supermarkets, banks, airlines and electricity companies. It’s not enough to know their tricks. Fels wants to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission more power to investigate and more power to prohibit mergers. But it helps to know how they try to trick us, and how technology has enabled them to get better at it. After reading the report, I’ve identified eight key maneuvers. <h2>1. Asymmetric price movements</h2> Otherwise known as <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/25593733">Rocket and Feather</a>, this is where businesses push up prices quickly when costs rise, but cut them slowly or late after costs fall. It seems to happen for <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988323002074">petrol</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S105905601730240X">mortgage rates</a>, and the Fels inquiry was presented with evidence suggesting it happens in supermarkets. Brendan O’Keeffe from NSW Farmers told the inquiry wholesale lamb prices had been falling for six months before six Woolworths announced a cut in the prices of lamb it was selling as a “<a href="https://pricegouginginquiry.actu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/InquiryIntoPriceGouging_Report_web.pdf">Christmas gift</a>”. <h2>2. Punishment for loyal customers</h2> A <a href="https://theconversation.com/simple-fixes-could-help-save-australian-consumers-from-up-to-3-6-billion-in-loyalty-taxes-119978">loyalty tax</a> is what happens when a business imposes higher charges on customers who have been with it for a long time, on the assumption that they won’t move. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has alleged a big <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-qantas-might-have-done-all-australians-a-favour-by-making-refunds-so-hard-to-get-213346">insurer</a> does it, setting premiums not only on the basis of risk, but also on the basis of what a computer model tells them about the likelihood of each customer tolerating a price hike. The insurer disputes the claim. It’s often done by offering discounts or new products to new customers and leaving existing customers on old or discontinued products. It happens a lot in the <a href="https://www.finder.com.au/utilities-loyalty-costing-australians-billions-2024">electricity industry</a>. The plans look good at first, and then less good as providers bank on customers not making the effort to shop around. Loyalty taxes appear to be less common among mobile phone providers. Australian laws make it easy to switch <a href="https://www.reviews.org/au/mobile/how-to-switch-mobile-carriers-and-keep-your-number/">and keep your number</a>. <h2>3. Loyalty schemes that provide little value</h2> Fels says loyalty schemes can be a “low-cost means of retaining and exploiting consumers by providing them with low-value rewards of dubious benefit”. Their purpose is to lock in (or at least bias) customers to choices already made. Examples include airline frequent flyer points, cafe cards that give you your tenth coffee free, and supermarket points programs. The purpose is to lock in (or at least bias) consumers to products already chosen. The <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/advertising-and-promotions/customer-loyalty-schemes">Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</a> has found many require users to spend a lot of money or time to earn enough points for a reward. Others allow points to expire or rules to change without notice or offer rewards that are not worth the effort to redeem. They also enable businesses to collect data on spending habits, preferences, locations, and personal information that can be used to construct customer profiles that allow them to target advertising and offers and high prices to some customers and not others. <h2>4. Drip pricing that hides true costs</h2> The Competition and Consumer Commission describes <a href="https://pricegouginginquiry.actu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/InquiryIntoPriceGouging_Report_web.pdf">drip pricing</a> as “when a price is advertised at the beginning of an online purchase, but then extra fees and charges (such as booking and service fees) are gradually added during the purchase process”. The extras can add up quickly and make final bills much higher than expected. Airlines are among the best-known users of the strategy. They often offer initially attractive base fares, but then add charges for baggage, seat selection, in-flight meals and other extras. <h2>5. Confusion pricing</h2> Related to drip pricing is <a href="https://www.x-mol.net/paper/article/1402386414932836352">confusion pricing</a> where a provider offers a range of plans, discounts and fees so complex they are overwhelming. Financial products like insurance have convoluted fee structures, as do electricity providers. Supermarkets do it by bombarding shoppers with “specials” and “sales”. When prices change frequently and without notice, it adds to the confusion. <h2>6. Algorithmic pricing</h2> <a href="https://pricegouginginquiry.actu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/InquiryIntoPriceGouging_Report_web.pdf">Algorithmic pricing</a> is the practice of using algorithms to set prices automatically taking into account competitor responses, which is something akin to computers talking to each other. When computers get together in this way they can <a href="https://www.x-mol.net/paper/article/1402386414932836352">act as it they are colluding</a> even if the humans involved in running the businesses never talk to each other. It can act even more this way when multiple competitors use the same third-party pricing algorithm, effectively allowing a single company to influence prices. <h2>7. Price discrimination</h2> Price discrimination involves charging different customers different prices for the same product, setting each price in accordance with how much each customer is prepared to pay. Banks do it when they offer better rates to customers likely to leave them, electricity companies do it when they offer better prices for business customers than households, and medical specialists do it when they offer vastly different prices for the same service to consumers with different incomes. It is made easier by digital technology and data collection. While it can make prices lower for some customers, it can make prices much more expensive to customers in a hurry or in urgent need of something. <h2>8. Excuse-flation</h2> <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-09/how-excuseflation-is-keeping-prices-and-corporate-profits-high">Excuse-flation</a> is where general inflation provides “cover” for businesses to raise prices without justification, blaming nothing other than general inflation. It means that in times of general high inflation businesses can increase their prices even if their costs haven’t increased by as much. On Thursday Reserve Bank Governor <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/inflation-is-cover-for-pricing-gouging-rba-boss-says-20240215-p5f58d">Michele Bullock</a> seemed to confirm that she though some firms were doing this saying that when inflation had been brought back to the Bank’s target, it would be "much more difficult, I think, for firms to use high inflation as cover for this sort of putting up their prices." <h2>A political solution is needed</h2> Ultimately, our own vigilance won’t be enough. We will need political help. The government’s recently announced <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/review/competition-review-2023">competition review</a> might be a step in this direction. The legislative changes should police business practices and prioritise fairness. Only then can we create a marketplace where ethics and competition align, ensuring both business prosperity and consumer wellbeing. This isn’t just about economics, it’s about building a fairer, more sustainable Australia.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223310/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-tuffley-13731">David Tuffley</a>, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-prices-are-so-high-8-ways-retail-pricing-algorithms-gouge-consumers-223310">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

The 4 biggest gift-giving mistakes, according to a consumer psychologist

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/julian-givi-1395671">Julian Givi</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/west-virginia-university-1375">West Virginia University</a> A good gift can elicit a surge of happiness and gratitude in the recipient. It also feels great to give, <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-point-of-holiday-gifts-173306">with psychologists finding</a> that the joy of giving a gift is more pronounced than the pleasure of receiving one. Unfortunately, there are times when you receive a gift and you have to force a smile and fake your gratitude. I’m a consumer psychologist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wjAq_TcAAAAJ&hl=en">who specializes in gift-giving research</a> – in particular, gift-giving mistakes. Here are four of the most common ones. <h2>1. Prioritizing the big reveal</h2> One way givers can err is by focusing too much on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416656937">the moment the recipient will open the gift</a>. Givers want their gift to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/675737">desirable</a>. They hope <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.015">to surprise</a> the recipient and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2733341">put a smile</a> on their face. A chocolate fondue fountain might meet these criteria – it’s quirky and sure to elicit curiosity and smiles from onlookers. However, when people receive a gift, they care less about the moment the bow comes off, and instead think about the weeks and months ahead. People want gifts that are <a href="https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1023703/volumes/v45/NA-45">useful</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/675737">reliable</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.015">meet their needs</a>. How often would a chocolate fondue fountain realistically be used? Compare that to a new coffee maker, which could see action every day. Sure, it isn’t a novelty – and probably won’t elicit “oohs” and “ahhs” on Christmas Day – but the recipient will be quite happy to have it on hand when their alarm rings each morning. <h2>2. Unique and new are overrated</h2> Another factor that can lead givers to go wrong involves unwritten rules for what constitutes good gift-giving practices. Givers often focus on these rules more than they should. For example, they may <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.023">avoid giving the same gift</a> to someone in back-to-back years because this goes against the norm of giving a unique gift each year. Givers also often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604x23428">refrain from giving used products</a> as gifts because this violates the unspoken rule that a gift should be brand new. In contrast, recipients are quite open to gifts that violate these norms. If someone loves a certain type of wine, they’re <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.023">more than happy to receive it</a> in subsequent years. And if one digital camera is lightly used but possesses several innovative features, while another is new but has fewer features, people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604x23428">are happy to receive the used one</a>. <h2>3. Being risk-averse</h2> Givers can make missteps when they avoid gifts that they see as too risky. Consider sentimental gifts, like a scrapbook or a nostalgic memento. Studies have shown that recipients <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.06.002">love these gifts</a>; they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000036">elicit happiness for extended periods of time</a>. Givers, however, tend to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.06.002">shy away from sentimental gifts</a> because they see them risky – sure, they could be a home run, but they could also whiff. Doubts can creep into shoppers’ heads as they consider sentimental gifts: What if it comes across as sappy? What if the recipient thinks I’m being cheap? And so people tend to opt for <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S105774081730044X">safer, superficial gifts</a> that they assume will be at least somewhat well-liked. Or, to continue with the baseball analogy, givers are happy to take the sure single. As another example, consider material goods versus experiences. When giving gifts, people often opt for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy010">tangible objects over experiences</a> because material goods are on the safer side – almost everyone could use a new appliance or a new shirt. Experiences are trickier; they require a bit more of an understanding of who the recipient truly is – not everyone loves going to see the symphony. Yet recipients tend to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1281">more open to experiences than givers anticipate</a> – and these gifts <a href="https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1017575/volumes/v42/NA-42">are actually more likely to make people happier</a> than material goods. <h2>4. Does the thought really count?</h2> Givers can also err by wanting their gift to appear especially thoughtful. Of course, recipients appreciate thoughtfulness – but not when it comes at the expense of receiving something that’s actually useful. This plays out when givers are shopping for multiple people. They’ll often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/674199">choose unique gifts for each recipient</a>, rather than give the same gift to everyone, because a distinct gift for each person will make them feel as though they put more time and effort into gift selection. People do this even if they realize that some recipients will be receiving less desirable gifts. You’ll also see this happen with <a href="https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1020146/volumes/v43/NA-43">gift cards</a>. Givers often choose specific gift cards – to a particular clothing store or restaurant, for example – that reflect the interests or tastes of the recipient. But recipients are more open to gift cards that give them more flexibility and freedom – think an Amazon or Visa gift card. That way, they can decide whether to splurge on a new sweater, dine out at their favorite restaurant – or do both.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195169/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/julian-givi-1395671">Julian Givi</a>, Assistant Professor of Marketing, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/west-virginia-university-1375">West Virginia University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-4-biggest-gift-giving-mistakes-according-to-a-consumer-psychologist-195169">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

This law makes it illegal for companies to collect third-party data to profile you but they do anyway

A little-known provision of the Privacy Act makes it illegal for many companies in Australia to buy or exchange consumers’ personal data for profiling or targeting purposes. It’s almost never enforced. In a published <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4224653" target="_blank" rel="noopener">research paper</a>, I argue that needs to change. “Data enrichment” is the intrusive practice of companies going behind our backs to “fill in the gaps” of the information we provide. When you purchase a product or service from a company, fill out an online form, or sign up for a newsletter, you might provide only the necessary data such as your name, email, delivery address and/or payment information. That company may then turn to other retailers or <a href="https://www.oracle.com/au/cx/advertising/data-enrichment-measurement/#data-enrichment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data brokers</a> to purchase or exchange extra data about you. This could include your age, family, health, habits and more. This allows them to build a more detailed individual profile on you, which helps them predict your behaviour and more precisely target you with ads. For almost ten years, there has been a law in Australia that makes this kind of data enrichment illegal if a company can “reasonably and practicably” request that information directly from the consumer. And at least <a href="https://consultations.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/privacy-act-review-discussion-paper/consultation/view_respondent?_b_index=60&uuId=926016195" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one major data broker</a> has asked the government to “remove” this law. The burning question is: why is there not a single published case of this law being enforced against companies “enriching” customer data for profiling and targeting purposes? <h2>Data collection ‘only from the individual’</h2> The relevant law is Australian Privacy Principle 3.6 and is part of the federal <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2022C00199" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Privacy Act</a>. It applies to most organisations that operate businesses with annual revenues higher than A$3 million, and smaller data businesses. The law says such organisations: <blockquote> must collect personal information about an individual only from the individual […] unless it is unreasonable or impracticable to do so. </blockquote> This “direct collection rule” protects individuals’ privacy by allowing them some control over information collected about them, and avoiding a combination of data sources that could reveal sensitive information about their vulnerabilities. But this rule has received almost no attention. There’s only one published determination of the federal privacy regulator on it, and that was against the <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AICmr/2020/69.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian Defence Force</a> in a different context. According to Australian Privacy Principle 3.6, it’s only legal for an organisation to collect personal information from a third party if it would be “unreasonable or impracticable” to collect that information from the individual alone. This exception was intended to apply to <a href="https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles-guidelines/chapter-3-app-3-collection-of-solicited-personal-information#collecting-directly-from-the-individual" target="_blank" rel="noopener">limited situations</a>, such as when: <ul> <li>the individual is being investigated for some wrongdoing</li> <li>the individual’s address needs to be updated for delivery of legal or official documents.</li> </ul> The exception shouldn’t apply simply because a company wants to collect extra information for profiling and targeting, but realises the customer would probably refuse to provide it. <h2>Who’s bypassing customers for third-party data?</h2> Aside from data brokers, companies also exchange information with each other about their respective customers to get extra information on customers’ lives. This is often referred to as “data matching” or “data partnerships”. Companies tend to be very vague about who they share information with, and who they get information from. So we don’t know for certain who’s buying data-enrichment services from data brokers, or “matching” customer data. Major companies such as <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202075050&ref_=footer_iba" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amazon Australia</a>, <a href="https://www.ebay.com.au/help/policies/member-behaviour-policies/user-privacy-notice-privacy-policy?id=4260&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=705-53470-19255-0&campid=5337590774&customid=&toolid=10001#section4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">eBay Australia</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy/?subpage=1.subpage.4-InformationFromPartnersVendors" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Meta</a> (Facebook), <a href="https://www.viacomcbsprivacy.com/en/policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">10Play Viacom</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/en/privacy#twitter-privacy-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a> include terms in the fine print of their privacy policies that state they collect personal information from third parties, including demographic details and/or interests. <a href="https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US#infocollect" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Google</a>, <a href="https://preferences.news.com.au/privacy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">News Corp</a>, <a href="https://www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/privacy-policies/privacy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Seven</a>, <a href="https://login.nine.com.au/privacy?client_id=smh" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nine</a> and others also say they collect personal information from third parties, but are more vague about the nature of that information. These privacy policies don’t explain why it would be unreasonable or impracticable to collect that information directly from customers. <h2>Consumer ‘consent’ is not an exception</h2> Some companies may try to justify going behind customers’ backs to collect data because there’s an obscure term in their privacy policy that mentions they collect personal information from third parties. Or because the company disclosing the data has a privacy policy term about sharing data with “trusted data partners”. But even if this amounts to consumer “consent” under the relatively weak standards for consent in our current privacy law, this is not an exception to the direct collection rule. The law allows a “consent” exception for government agencies under a separate part of the direct collection rule, but not for private organisations. <h2>Data enrichment involves personal information</h2> Many companies with third-party data collection terms in their privacy policies acknowledge this is personal information. But some may argue the collected data isn’t “personal information” under the Privacy Act, so the direct collection rule doesn’t apply. Companies often exchange information about an individual without using the individual’s legal name or email. Instead they may use a unique advertising identifier for that individual, or <a href="https://help.abc.net.au/hc/en-us/articles/4402890310671" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“hash” the email address</a> to turn it into a unique string of numbers and letters. They essentially allocate a “code name” to the consumer. So the companies can exchange information that can be linked to the individual, yet say this information wasn’t connected to their actual name or email. However, this information should still be treated as personal information because it can be linked back to the individual when combined with other <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2017/4.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">information about them</a>. <h2>At least one major data broker is against it</h2> Data broker <a href="https://www.experian.com.au/business/solutions/audience-targeting/digital-solutions-sell-side/digital-audiences-ss" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Experian Australia</a> has asked the government to “remove” Australian Privacy Principle 3.6 “altogether”. In its <a href="https://consultations.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/privacy-act-review-discussion-paper/consultation/view_respondent?_b_index=60&uuId=926016195" target="_blank" rel="noopener">submission</a> to the Privacy Act Review in January, Experian argued: <blockquote> It is outdated and does not fit well with modern data uses. </blockquote> Others who profit from data enrichment or data matching would probably agree, but prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. Experian argued the law favours large companies with direct access to lots of customers and opportunities to pool data collected from across their own corporate group. It said companies with access to fewer consumers and less data would be disadvantaged if they can’t purchase data from brokers. But the fact that some digital platforms impose extensive personal data collection on customers supports the case for stronger privacy laws. It doesn’t mean there should be a data free-for-all. <h2>Our privacy regulator should take action</h2> It has been three years since the consumer watchdog recommended <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Digital%20platforms%20inquiry%20-%20final%20report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">major reforms</a> to our privacy laws to reduce the disadvantages consumers suffer from invasive data practices. These reforms are probably still years away, if they eventuate at all. The direct collection rule is a very rare thing. It is an existing Australian privacy law that favours consumers. The privacy regulator should prioritise the enforcement of this law for the benefit of consumers. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-law-makes-it-illegal-for-companies-to-collect-third-party-data-to-profile-you-but-they-do-anyway-190758" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Shutterstock

Legal

Top tips for avoiding scams

Falling victim to a clever scam artist is something we all fear! With these top tips we show you how to avoid getting ripped off. Statistics show that unfortunately older Australians are often the target of scam artists looking to make a quick buck off someone else’s hard-earned cash. They’ve had help. With technology evolving and more people going online to pay bills, communicate with friends and family, and to find love, there have been a number of reported cases of people sending money overseas or elsewhere never to see it again. However, there are ways to outsmart those who would try to trick you out of your retirement savings. What to look out for Financial fraud can come in any form. It can be an email from a stranger asking for a donation to a charitable cause or a phone call promising a once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity. However, as the saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it’s because it probably is. According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) SCAMwatch site, a one-stop information shop on how to recognise, avoid and report scams, almost everyone will be approached by a scammer at some stage in their life. That’s a scary pronouncement, but one that’s very much evident in the growing number of stories of people who have fallen victim to a scam. While some scams are easy to spot, others appear to be genuine offers or bargains. There’s a number of different types of scams too, from investment and superannuation scams to ones involving your bank or credit card. It can even look as innocent as a supermarket customer satisfaction survey. At the end of last year, the ACCC spread the news of a fake Woolworths’ customer satisfaction survey, which asked shoppers for their bank account details in exchange for a $150 gift voucher. Scammers sent the survey out mostly via social media or email, and asked people to complete all of the questions before saying they could claim their voucher. However, when people did try and claim the voucher, they found it was fake. “Scammers impersonate well-known businesses to get their hands on your personal details,” ACCC deputy chair Delia Rickard said at the time. “Once you have unknowingly sent your details to a scammer, they can steal your money – and possibly even your identity.” Warning signs Scams can target people of all backgrounds, ages and income levels. The reason many people fall victim to a scam is because they look like the real thing. They could look like a legitimate business email or letter, with logos, contact details and genuine information that could be targeting a specific need or desire. It’s not until you dig a little deeper that you find something is not right. Scammers can also manipulate you by “pushing your buttons”, according to the ACCC, to get an automatic response. This is not based on you personally but on how society works as a whole. It’s not until after you have acted in the way they want that you find something is wrong. The best way to spot a scam is to be vigilant and cautious, especially when it comes to giving out personal details over the internet or the phone. Most scams will need you to do something before they can work. It may ask for your bank or credit card details, or for you to send money based on a promise of significant financial reward that turns out to be false. Some scams also rely on you to agree to deals without getting advice first or to buy a product without properly looking into it. Don’t be a victim The first step in protecting yourself against scams and other forms of financial fraud is to be aware that it can happen. Some people hold certain perceptions that make them more susceptible to being scammed, such as the belief that all companies or organisations are legitimate or that all internet sites are legitimate. Both are myths. Consumer protection agencies try to weed out dodgy operators before they have an impact, but sometimes one can slip through the net. Most of these fake sites will be taken down after a few days, but that is still long enough for someone to have bought into a dodgy deal or to have provided their bank details to a scammer. The second step is to be cautious and protective of your personal details. This includes your contact details and bank or credit card details. Always seek independent advice before agreeing to any sort of money commitment and remember there are no get-rich-quick schemes. Check your bank statements regularly and if you see a transaction that you’re not sure about or cannot explain, contact your bank or credit union. Also, keep your bank cards and personal identity number safe and secure. Be cautious and question everything. It’s the best approach to make sure you don’t become a scam victim. Image: Getty Images

Money & Banking

New panel places the voice of aged care consumers at the centre

The voice of aged care consumers and their families is vitally important for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to hear and understand. This is the message from Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, Janet Anderson, as the Commission establishes its first ever Consumers and Families Panel. “People receiving aged care, and their experience of that care, are central to the Commission’s purpose - ensuring their wellbeing underpins all of our efforts,” Ms Anderson said. “They must be front and centre of everything aged care providers do, and also in the work of the Commission, placing the needs of those receiving care at the forefront at all times.” To better understand what’s important to people who use aged care services, the Commission is establishing a Consumers and Families Panel made up of people receiving Australian Government funded aged care services, their family members and representatives. The Commission wants the panel to reflect the diversity of people who access aged care across Australia. “It is very important that the panel is as diverse as the people who use Australian Government funded aged care,” Ms Anderson said. “We are inviting anyone living in residential aged care or receiving home care or using Commonwealth- funded aged care services in the community to share their ideas and opinions with us. We’re also interested in hearing from family members and carers of aged care recipients, and people who are considering using aged care services within the next 12 months.” The Consumers and Families Panel will help the Commission, as the national aged care regulator, in its work overseeing the quality of aged care services and resolving complaints about these services. “It will improve the way we regulate aged care services and resolve complaints and help make sure that the information we produce is fit for purpose and easy to understand for everyone,” Ms Anderson said. The Commission will invite panel members to share their ideas and opinions about things such as: <ul> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> issues that are of most concern to people receiving care that the Commission should know about </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> how the Commission can reach people better </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> how people can be better supported to interact with the Commission </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> videos or other resources prepared by the Commission. </li> </ul> Panel members will be able to provide input and engage in different ways, including by email or telephone, or by taking part in online or in-person meetings. The CEO of the Older Persons Advocacy Network (OPAN), Craig Gear OAM, welcomes the Commission’s new Consumers and Families Panel. “Older people must be consulted at every step of the aged care journey to ensure their rights, needs and preferences are being met,” Mr Gear said. “The Consumers and Families Panel will enable older people and their families to better engage with, and inform, the aged care regulator. Their lived experience is critical to ensuring all older people receive the care and services they deserve.” People wishing to be part of the Commission’s Consumers and Families Panel can register their interest via the Commission’s website at: <a href="http://www.agedcarequality.gov.au/consumer-panel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.agedcarequality.gov.au/consumer-panel</a> or call the Commission on 1800 951 822. For more information about the Commission and its work, please visit the Commission’s website at: <a href="http://www.agedcarequality.gov.au" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.agedcarequality.gov.au</a>. Image: Shutterstock

Retirement Life

ACCC says consumers need more choices about what online marketplaces are doing with their data

Consumers using online retail marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon “have little effective choice in the amount of data they share”, according to the <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/serial-publications/digital-platform-services-inquiry-2020-2025/digital-platform-services-inquiry-march-2022-interim-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">latest report</a> of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) Digital Platform Services Inquiry. Consumers may benefit from personalisation and recommendations in these marketplaces based on their data, but many are in the dark about how much personal information these companies collect and share for other purposes. <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/concerning-issues-for-consumers-and-sellers-on-online-marketplaces" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb</a> said: <blockquote> We believe consumers should be given more information about, and control over, how online marketplaces collect and use their data. </blockquote> The report reiterates the ACCC’s earlier calls for amendments to the Australian Consumer Law to address unfair data terms and practices. It also points out that the government is considering <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/consultations/review-privacy-act-1988" target="_blank" rel="noopener">proposals for major changes to privacy law</a>. However, none of these proposals is likely to come into effect in the near future. In the meantime, we should also consider whether practices such as obtaining information about users from third-party data brokers are fully compliant with existing privacy law. Why did the ACCC examine online marketplaces? The ACCC examined competition and consumer issues associated with “general online retail marketplaces” as part of its <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries-ongoing/digital-platform-services-inquiry-2020-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">five-year Digital Platform Services Inquiry</a>. These marketplaces facilitate transactions between third-party sellers and consumers on a common platform. They do not include retailers that don’t operate marketplaces, such as Kmart, or platforms such as Gumtree that carry classified ads but don’t allow transactions. The ACCC report focuses on the four largest online marketplaces in Australia: Amazon Australia, Catch, eBay Australia and Kogan. In 2020–21, these four carried sales totalling $8.4 billion. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Online marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay, Catch and Kogan facilitate transactions between third-party buyers and sellers. <a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/new-york-usa-november-1-2018-1219079038" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Shutterstock</a></figcaption></figure> According to the report, eBay has the largest sales of these companies. Amazon Australia is the second-largest and the fastest-growing, with an 87% increase in sales over the past two years. The ACCC examined: <ul> <li>the state of competition in the relevant markets</li> <li>issues facing sellers who depend on selling their products through these marketplaces</li> <li>consumer issues including concerns about personal information collection, use and sharing.</li> </ul> Consumers don’t want their data used for other purposes The ACCC expressed concern that in online marketplaces, “the extent of data collection, use and disclosure … often does not align with consumer preferences”. The Commission pointed to surveys about <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Consumer%20Policy%20Research%20Centre%20%28CPRC%29%20%2818%20August%202021%29.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian consumer attitudes to privacy</a> which indicate: <ul> <li>94% did not feel comfortable with how digital platforms including online marketplaces collect their personal information</li> <li>92% agreed that companies should only collect information they need for providing their product or service</li> <li>60% considered it very or somewhat unacceptable for their online behaviour to be monitored for targeted ads and offers.</li> </ul> However, the four online marketplaces analysed: <ul> <li>do not proactively present privacy terms to consumers “throughout the purchasing journey”</li> <li>may allow advertisers or other third parties to place tracking cookies on users’ devices</li> <li>do not clearly identify how consumers can opt out of cookies while still using the marketplace.</li> </ul> Some of the marketplaces also obtain extra data about individuals from third-party data brokers or advertisers. The <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3432769" target="_blank" rel="noopener">harms from increased tracking and profiling</a> of consumers include decreased privacy; manipulation based on detailed profiling of traits and weaknesses; and discrimination or exclusion from opportunities. Limited choices: you can’t just ‘walk out of a store’ Some might argue that consumers must not actually care that much about privacy if they keep using these companies, but the choice is not so simple. The ACCC notes the relevant privacy terms are often spread across multiple web pages and offered on a “take it or leave it” basis. The terms also use “bundled consents”. This means that agreeing to the company using your data to fill your order, for example, may be bundled together with agreeing for the company to use your data for its separate advertising business. Further, as my research has shown, there is <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3905693" target="_blank" rel="noopener">so little competition on privacy</a> between these marketplaces that consumers can’t just find a better offer. The ACCC agrees: <blockquote> While consumers in Australia can choose between a number of online marketplaces, the common approaches and practices of the major online marketplaces to data collection and use mean that consumers have little effective choice in the amount of data they share. </blockquote> Consumers also seem unable to require these companies to delete their data. The situation is quite different from conventional retail interactions where a consumer can select “unsubscribe” or walk out of a store. Does our privacy law currently permit all these practices? The ACCC has reiterated its earlier calls to amend the Australian Consumer Law to prohibit unfair practices and make unfair contract terms illegal. (At present unfair contract terms are just void, or unenforceable.) The report also points out that the government is considering proposals for major changes to privacy law, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-new-proposed-privacy-code-promises-tough-rules-and-10-million-penalties-for-tech-giants-170711" target="_blank" rel="noopener">these changes</a> are uncertain and may take more than a year to come into effect. In the meantime, we should look more closely at the practices of these marketplaces under current privacy law. For example, under the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A03712" target="_blank" rel="noopener">federal Privacy Act</a> the four marketplaces <blockquote> must collect personal information about an individual only from the individual unless … it is unreasonable or impracticable to do so. </blockquote> However, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3905693" target="_blank" rel="noopener">some online marketplaces</a> say they collect information about individual consumers’ interests and demographics from “<a href="https://www.ebay.com.au/help/policies/member-behaviour-policies/user-privacy-notice-privacy-policy?id=4260&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=705-53470-19255-0&campid=5338596835&customid=&toolid=10001#section4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data providers</a>” and <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202075050&ref_=footer_iba" target="_blank" rel="noopener">other third parties</a>. We don’t know the full detail of what’s collected, but demographic information might include our age range, income, or family details. How is it “unreasonable or impracticable” to obtain information about our demographics and interests directly from us? Consumers could ask online marketplaces this question, and complain to the <a href="https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-complaints" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Office of the Australian Information Commissioner</a> if there is no reasonable answer.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182134/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katharine-kemp-402096" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Katharine Kemp</a>, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UNSW Sydney</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/accc-says-consumers-need-more-choices-about-what-online-marketplaces-are-doing-with-their-data-182134" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Technology

New food database to help consumers understand nutrition

A new food data base to help consumers understand the nutritional value of food they eat is currently in the works and will simplify understanding the nutritional value behind foods we love to eat. Do we really know and understand what is healthy and what isn’t when filling up the cart during your weekly shop? Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has begun developing a database to help consumers understand the nutritional value of the food they consume. FSANZ General Manager of Science and Risk Assessment, Christel Leemhuis, says the new Branded Food Database will work alongside the Health Star Rating system (HSR) and was requested by the department of Health. "It will allow us to track changes in the nutrient profile of foods over time, the database is targeted at providing a reliable source of information for modelling any future HSR changes." Consumers will be able to access the database online by entering a barcode to see the product’s health information. No scanning app will be available as of yet, but FSANZ hoped to add this consumer friendly feature to the database in time. Despite FSANZ's goal to include 85 per cent of food products available in Australia by 2023, it was up to food producers to opt-in, Ms Leemhuis said. "But by providing information to the database manufactures and retailers will contribute to industry transparency," she said. "We will compare that to our existing food composition databases, so that will allow us to identify if there are any products with a nutrient profile that doesn't look quite right [if we suspect a company is supplying inaccurate information]." Recent changes to the HSR system that prioritise sugar content as an assessment criteria have received harsh criticism from those who grow fruit, as juices are now ranked below diet soft drinks in terms of high sugar content. Agriculture Minister David Littleproud had also previously dubbed the labelling process as “madness” due to the emphasis on sugar content. Ms Leemhuis promises the new database will provide a more thorough breakdown of food’s nutrients.

Food & Wine

New food database to help consumers understand nutrition

Image: Shutterstock A new food data base to help consumers understand the nutritional value of food they eat is currently in the works and will simplify understanding the nutritional value behind foods we love to eat. Do we really know and understand what is healthy and what isn’t when filling up the cart during your weekly shop? Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has begun developing a database to help consumers understand the nutritional value of the food they consume. FSANZ General Manager of Science and Risk Assessment, Christel Leemhuis, says the new Branded Food Database will work alongside the Health Star Rating system (HSR) and was requested by the department of Health. "It will allow us to track changes in the nutrient profile of foods over time, the database is targeted at providing a reliable source of information for modelling any future HSR changes." Consumers will be able to access the database online by entering a barcode to see the product’s health information. No scanning app will be available as of yet, but FSANZ hoped to add this consumer friendly feature to the database in time. Despite FSANZ's goal to include 85 per cent of food products available in Australia by 2023, it was up to food producers to opt-in, Ms Leemhuis said. "But by providing information to the database manufactures and retailers will contribute to industry transparency," she said. "We will compare that to our existing food composition databases, so that will allow us to identify if there are any products with a nutrient profile that doesn't look quite right [if we suspect a company is supplying inaccurate information]." Recent changes to the HSR system that prioritise sugar content as an assessment criteria have received harsh criticism from those who grow fruit, as juices are now ranked below diet soft drinks in terms of high sugar content. Agriculture Minister David Littleproud had also previously dubbed the labelling process as “madness” due to the emphasis on sugar content. Ms Leemhuis promises the new database will provide a more thorough breakdown of food’s nutrients.

Food & Wine

The use of drones: What does the law say?

The rise of the digital age has been marked by an expansion in the types of technologies available to consumers. Perhaps one of the more controversial technologies to hit shelves in recent years is the drone. Consumer drones, also known as ‘unmanned aerial vehicles,’ allow users to photograph, record and transmit information using remotely controlled, airborne craft. They offer many advantages; enabling users to obtain aerial footage without the need for manned aircraft such as helicopters, which can be expensive to operate. They also allow users to take photos and videos in situations which would otherwise be inaccessible, dangerous or illegal to reach. For these reasons, they have become popular with real estate photographers, police, and even the media. However, <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-impact-of-drones-on-privacy/">the use of drones has raised questions about the extent to which they may impinge on privacy rights</a> – and, perhaps even more importantly, the ways in which they may pose a threat to public safety. Last week a man was fined $850 <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-18/drone-fine-man-hit-with-24850-penalty-for-interfering-with/5977594">after he attempted to use his drone to obtain footage of a siege in Melbourne’s western suburbs</a>. Authorities believe he was trying to take pictures of a police operation – but his efforts didn’t go to plan. His drone lost control after it hit a power pole and it was confiscated by police. Aviation authorities say the incident highlights the dangers of using drones in situations involving emergency personnel. There are also concerns about the use of drones near large crowds or gatherings as there is the potential to cause injury to members of the public if used inappropriately. It is believed that the drone’s operator was attempting to capture footage of the race when he lost control. Current Laws Regarding Drone Use So, what does the law say about the use of drones? The use of drones in Australia is regulated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which has developed specific regulations regulating their operation. There are two different sets of regulations which apply to drones – commercial regulations for those who use their drones for business operations, and civil regulations which apply to hobby users. If you’re wanting to use your drone for business operations, the law requires you to obtain an ‘Operator’s Certificate’ – similar to a driver’s licence, but for drones. You also need to have all commercial flights approved by CASA, which involves lodging paperwork and a flight plan. If these requirements are not complied with, you may have your Operator’s Certificate revoked, be issued with an infringement notice or even face criminal charges. For hobbyists, the rules are slightly more relaxed, however you will be expected to comply with certain requirements in the interests of public safety. Users must ensure that they only fly their drones during the day, at least 30 metres away from other people and below 400 feet in the air. Drones must also not be flown over crowds or large gatherings, or within 5 kilometres of an airport. If you fail to adhere to these regulations, you could cop a fine of up to $8,500. You could also face criminal prosecution if your actions injure another person or their property. A need for better regulation? A spate of safety incidents, coupled with concerns that drone use may impinge upon privacy rights, led the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs to conduct <a href="http://www.cnet.com/au/news/parliament-committee-warns-about-drone-privacy/">an inquiry in July into the laws governing drone use in Australia.</a> It found that as drones becomes more commonplace, tougher laws are required to deal with privacy and safety concerns, as there are a number of gaps in the current laws. The Committee made six recommendations – including for CASA to include information about Australia’s privacy laws on safety pamphlets distributed to vendors of drones, and for the pamphlets to ‘highlight remotely piloted aircraft users’ responsibility not to monitor, record or disclose individuals’ private activities without their consent.’ The Committee also recommended that the government introduce specific new laws providing protection against ‘privacy-invasive technologies’ such as drones. It is hoped that these laws will be introduced by July 2015, however it is not yet certain what form the new laws will take. Written by Ugur Nedim. Republished with permission of <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-use-of-drones-what-does-the-law-say/">Sydney Criminal Lawyers. </a>

Travel Tips

Aussies latest target in horrific new scam

Aussies are the latest targets in a worldwide scam that is circulating on Facebook, as the scam lures in victims with the promise of very cheap smartphones. This scam is unlike normal Facebook scams, as online hackers have gone to great lengths to make it look like legitimate news articles are endorsing the very cheap smartphones. Other publications that have been caught up in the scam include The Guardian, BBC, Stuff NZ, Yahoo News! And news.com.au. The scam has also been operating worldwide in other countries, such as the United States, New Zealand, Singapore, Norway, Sweden and France. Swinburne University social media major director Dr Belinda Barnet said to <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/sick-fraudsters-target-aussies-in-facebook-fake-news-scam/news-story/67f877e521f9a9357752f84b57f7f2be">news.com.au</a> that the attention to detail from the scammers is “particularly disturbing”. The fake news articles offer Samsung Galaxy S10 smartphones for $1 to $3, pretending that the very cheap deal is a part of a “marketing strategy” to inflate its popularity over Apple. “Samsung can regain AU users by giving away extremely low-priced phones to people and converting them to repeat Samsung customers who will spread the word to their friends,” the fraudulent article said. Readers are then encouraged to click a link to “claim their offer”, which leads to a copied Samsung website that extracts names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and their credit card details to pay for the $3 phone. Victims instead report being charged $99 by an unknown company and receiving no phone in return. “These scams are proliferating more and more and Facebook is not doing enough to counter it,” Dr Barnet. “It’s obviously concerning that an actual masthead is being used. “If we regulate and make social media companies responsible for the pieces they promote — even if we didn’t regulate organic posts but just the things that make Facebook money — that would solve a lot of problems.” Samsung says that they are aware of this scam and have urged customers to "be vigilant". "Samsung is aware of this hoax offer for the Samsung Galaxy S10. We can confirm this is not an official Samsung promotion and we caution customers to be vigilant when considering third-party offers for Samsung products," the company said in a statement. "If customers would like to verify an offer or promotion regarding a Samsung product, they can contact <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.samsung.com%2Fau%2Finfo%2Fcontactus%2F&data=02%7C01%7CLilia.Villela%40edelman.com%7C767941065b764e9f425408d798c2b460%7Cb824bfb3918e43c2bb1cdcc1ba40a82b%7C0%7C0%7C637145834344082553&sdata=2hK1PnWszlQFALLz1aD95j54NK03Ad0VXHWsoTll0uQ%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable">Samsung</a> for further information." Facebook said that the social network uses automated and human moderators to identify scams but is unable to “catch every ad” that promotes a hoax. “We do not want ads that include widely debunked misinformation or make misleading and unsubstantiated claims on our platform,” he said. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Digital Platform Inquiry found that scams on digital platforms have grown by 188 per cent over four years. “The ACCC is concerned by the increase in this behaviour and the use of digital platforms to facilitate such conduct,” the report found. “This is damaging for businesses that inadvertently display these advertisements, and for consumers who fall victim to these scams and suffer both financial and non-financial loss.”

Technology

“Shamefully weak”: Product recalls have tripled since 1998

Australia’s product safety law has been slammed as “shamefully weak” and “unacceptable” as new figures revealed recalls have tripled in the past two decades. According to an analysis by consumer advocate group CHOICE, the number of annual product recalls in Australia have risen from under 200 in 1998 to more than 600 in 2018. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7833082/recalls2.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/eec5d6fa65a8411f8094254dbaab6e21" /> One in four Australian households are exposed to potential hazards from the 6.6 million individual products currently under voluntary recall, new data from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) showed. Another <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/unsafe-goods-should-be-illegal-to-sell">ACCC figures</a> found that there are 780 deaths and 52,000 injuries per year from consumer products commonly found in Australian homes, ranging from appliances and electronics to baby cots and toys. CHOICE product safety campaigner Amy Pereira called on the federal government to review the “shamefully weak” laws. “Australia has been let down by successive governments over the last two decades who have allowed unsafe products to flood into our homes … that’s millions of unsafe products that should have been stopped before they got to shelves, now in people’s homes,” Pereira said. “Businesses selling products in Australia have no general obligation to make sure the products they sell are safe. “Weak product safety laws harm people … Without stronger product safety laws, these unnecessary deaths and injuries will continue.” In a submission to the Treasury, CHOICE urged the federal government to establish a product safety system that includes clear laws and penalties for breaches. “With product recall rates skyrocketing in recent years, now is the time to reform,” the group said.

Retirement Income

Inventor promising rain to farmers for 50k denies "preying" on the desperate

An inventor has been accused of “preying” on vulnerable farmers by promising his device can change the weather and make it rain to where they need it most. However, David Miles from <a rel="noopener" href="http://www.milesresearch.co/" target="_blank">Miles Research</a> has insisted “there’s no way we want to con anyone”. Miles is currently offering a three-month rain contract to farmers in Victoria’s grain belt for $50,000 on a “success basis”. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has slammed this, saying that farmers should not do business with Miles, but they are powerless to stop him. “It’s preying on people’s desperation,” Australian Competition and Consumer Commission deputy chairman Mick Keogh <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/farmers-desperately-turn-to-a-man-who-can-make-it-rain/11630332" target="_blank">told ABC Radio on Wednesday</a>. “If you wanted to prosecute a court requires you to prove essentially that there’s no basis for the claims being made and that is a very difficult thing to do. By far the very best defence against them is widespread consumer education. It’s up to individuals obviously to make their own mind up. If it sounds too good to be true it probably is.” Miles has denied the allegations, saying that the ACCC are defaming him. “How can they do that without looking at our contracts? We’re success based, if we don’t deliver rain we don’t get paid,” he said to <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/we-dont-want-to-con-anyone-inventor-charging-50000-for-rain-denies-preying-on-farmers/news-story/4a253e71686cf66c41b8bab257921cd8" target="_blank">news.com.au</a>. “I think the ACCC probably jumped the gun in making that comment. They’ve never seen the contracts, they haven’t spoken with me. We don’t mind scepticism, but the Government needs to be careful not to defame us as they did in 2006.” What Miles is referring to is that he has been operating weather modification technology for nearly two decades under a different business name of Aquiess. The Victorian Government highly criticised the business back in 2006. Miles has said a “small private group” of farmers has seen results from the program. “They signed the agreement that if by the end of June they’d received 100mm, they pay $50,000, if they only receive 50mm, they would only pay $25,000. Anything under half we don’t want to be paid,” he said. One farmer vouched for the device, saying that he’s seen results. “I got involved because it sounded good, the fact you can control weather, because as a farmer rainfall is everything,” he told the broadcaster. “I think the evidence is out there, you look at the forecast what’s meant to come and all of a sudden it increases dramatically. You know that he’s behind it and I reckon I haven’t seen such good crops in this district ever, everywhere.” <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7832009/water-thing.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/3c0f74f296be4a5b9ce6f2b76932f4a7" /> Image credit: Miles Research Whitepaper Miles is keeping his technology under wraps as he fears it could be stolen by competitors or “weaponised” by the government. “There’s no way we want to con anyone,” he said. “Our best approach at the moment is to put up a risk-free model, so the farmers can get some rain and we can get some income to get a facility. We’ve been able to make adjustments to approaching weather and we want to be able to offer that to the rest of Australia.” On Miles’ website, since deleted, he claimed the technology uses “electromagnetic scalar waves”. “Electromagnetic scalar waves don’t exist,” University of Melbourne associate professor of physics Martin Sevior told ABC Radio. “There’s no such thing. He’s taken a few words and put them together and made them sound somewhat scientific but it’s meaningless.” Miles has also not patented the technology, as this would involve exposing how it works. “We were advised against patenting because it’s basically exposing how it works. There are a lot of big companies that invest in trawling through patents. We thought it’s probably right to go down the lines of Coca-Cola,” he said. “I understand the scepticism, the only other way is to fully prove up our science and physics and peer review. If we did that, we’ll lose it, it will be taken up as a national security interest and it’ll then be weaponised.”

Home & Garden

“People are fed up”: Treasurer Josh Frydenberg asks ACCC to investigate banks who fail to pass on rate cuts

Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to investigate the banking sector for failing to pass on interest rate cuts to customers in full. This comes after three official rate cuts since January, meaning that the new rate is a record low of 0.75 per cent. Frydenberg has said that the big four banks, ANZ, NAB, Commonwealth Bank and Westpac have failed to pass on the rate changes in full to their customers. "It's costing someone with a $400,000 mortgage around $500 in higher interest payments than they otherwise should have to pay if these last three rate cuts were passed on in full," Frydenberg told Channel 9, according to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-14/josh-frydenberg-asks-accc-to-investigate-banking-sector/11598614">The ABC</a>. "But it's not just these last three rate cuts where the banks have failed to pass them on, it's actually what's happened previously under the Labor government, there were 14 different rate cuts and only five of them were passed on in full. "So clearly there's a structural challenge here, there's a pattern of behaviour and the Australian people are fed up." Frydenberg has said that the ACCC needs to use its “particular powers to compel documentation to lift the hood and get to the bottom of this issue”. Labor also welcomes the inquiry by the ACCC in principle, but is asking to see the details of the plan. "Labor has been calling for the ACCC to play a bigger role here," Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers told AM. "With record household debt and stagnant debt under the Liberals you can see why customers are frustrated at the banks for not passing through interest rate cuts. "The big banks are still very profitable by international standards so they shouldn't be doing the wrong thing by borrowers. "We want to make sure that those interest rate cuts can do good in the economy, that means having them passed onto consumers." ANZ chief executive Shayne Elliot welcomes the inquiry. "Despite intense competition, there is cynicism in the broader community about interest rates for home loans," he said. "We know we have not done a good job in explaining our position and we will be working hard to ensure this process delivers results." Mike Baird, chief customer officer for consumer banking at NAB agrees, saying that the inquiry is “an important opportunity to discuss the challenges of an increasingly low interest rate environment and engage in a broader discussion about how we support all our customers— both depositors and borrowers". Westpac has said it’s “too early to comment” and a spokesman for Commonwealth Bank has said that it was “currently digesting the implications”.

Money & Banking

“Unacceptable”: Consumers rage as they’re left without phone or internet for days on end

Aussie users are fed up with the lack of service on their phones and internet services and have flooded Australia’s telco providers with nearly half a million complaints over just three months. The data was found in a new report done by the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s <a href="https://acma.gov.au/theACMA/telecommunications-complaints-handling">Telecommunications complaints handling report</a>. Telecommunications companies received 448,470 complaints between October and December last year. That number represents a 12.7 per cent increase in the amount of complaints made to telcos compared to the previous three months. The average time it took for telcos to resolve complaints ranged from one to 13 days, with an average time of six days, ACMA said. The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) described the figures as disappointing. “When people buy a product or service, they rightly expect it to work as promised,” ACCAN chief executive Teresa Corbin said to <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/tech/2019/07/10/telco-consumer-complaints/">The New Daily</a>. “It’s simply unacceptable for the millions of Australians who are connected to essential communications services to be left waiting for days on end without the service they have paid for. “Consumers should have a right to reliability.” RMIT university professor in network engineering Mark Gregory said that the figures show that Aussie consumers are being let down. “The number of faults and service interruptions experienced by Australian consumers remains far higher than what is reasonable and reflects the need for the telecommunications industry to do more to provide consumers with an improved experience,” Dr Gregory said. Many complaints tend to be related to the NBN. Dr Gregory said that the government’s “failure” to roll out fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) is “costing consumers more and this operations and maintenance cost is expected to grow over time, making FTTP a far cheaper and more reliable technology in the short term,” Dr Gregory said. However, a spokesman for the NBN said that the firm has made “significant investments to work with the telco industry to improve customer experience and we are starting to see the early signs of that”. “But we are quickly learning how to improve our processes and customer experience, as acknowledged in the ACMA report which noted the rate of FTTC complaints over the September to December quarters fell 33 per cent”.

Technology

Samsung in deep water over water resistant phone claims

Electronics giant Samsung are being taken to court for telling consumers that many of the four million Galaxy phones sold in Australia were water resistant while knowing they were not. They have denied the claims made by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The ACCC said that it had commenced Federal Court proceedings against Samsung for misleading and deceiving customers with claims about various Galaxy phones across more than 300 advertisements since February 2016. There were a variety of advertisements across social media, online, TV, billboards, brochures and other media that depicted the phones as being water resistant and showed them being used at pools and beaches. The phones were also advertised as being water resistant up to 1.5 metres for 30 minutes. “Samsung showed the Galaxy phones used in situations they shouldn’t be to attract customers,” ACCC Commissioner Rod Sims said on Thursday. “Under the Australian Consumer Law, businesses cannot mislead consumers about their products’ capabilities.” The ACCC have said that Samsung did not sufficiently test its phones to back the advertised claims and denied warranty claims from users who said their phones were damaged in water. “Samsung itself has acknowledged that water resistance is an important factor influencing Australian consumer decisions when they choose what mobile phone to purchase,” Mr Sims said. Samsung has issued a statement denying the allegations and saying that it “intends to defend the court proceedings brought by the ACCC.” “Samsung stands by its marketing and advertising of the water resistancy of its smartphones,” the statement said. “We are also confident that we provide customers with free-of-charge remedies in a manner consistent with Samsung’s obligations under its manufacturer warranty and the Australian Consumer Law. “Customer satisfaction is a top priority for Samsung and we are committed to acting in the best interest of our customers.”

Technology

5G health risks: Should consumers be worried?

Scientists are working hard to quash the rumours of ill-effects to your health that could be linked to the rollout of 5G technology. Potential health effects from 5G technology range from cancers to “allergies”. These are based around radiofrequency electromagnetic energy, which is how mobile phones send and receive information. Dr Ken Karipidis from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency told journalists that the fear “doesn’t hold weight”. “(Millimetre waves) don’t travel very far, so because of that there’s going to be a lot more base stations around and I think that’s one of the reasons why a lot of people are worried,” Dr Karipidis explained to <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/tech/2019/07/16/5g-network-health-risks/">The New Daily</a>. “There is going to be a lot of infrastructure that’s near their house, for example.” Millimetre waves are already used in technology that has been around for sometime, with no proven health effects in the long or short term. Dr Sarah Loughran said that there is a misunderstanding around 5G technology. As it runs at a higher frequency, people assumes it also emits higher energy levels. “While there will be more antennas and infrastructure needed to run the 5G network, it will run at a lower power level, and therefore its energy will not penetrate as deeply into the body as older technology,” Dr Loughran said, who is at the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research out of the University of Wollongong. One thing the two doctors agreed on was that any energy penetration into a human body will only be skin deep. Dr Karipidis was involved in an Australian study that sought to compare any increase in brain tumour incidences over the past 30 years with the growing popularity of mobile phones. Dr Karipidis and his team found that there was no increase in brain tumour rates during this period as well as finding no link in the long or short-term between radiowaves and cancer. “There are some people who believe they are sensitive to, or ‘allergic’, to electromagnetic energy,” Dr Loughan said. “This is actually a self-diagnosis … with no medical or scientific evidence,” she said. The 5G network has begun to be switched on in test sites around the country with a full complete roll out sometime next year.

Technology

What consumers need to know about Facebook’s new cryptocurrency

Cryptocurrencies have become a global phenomenon in the past few years. Now Facebook is launching it’s own cryptocurrency, in association with Visa, MasterCard, Uber and others. The stated aim of <a href="https://libra.org/en-US/">Libra</a> is to “enable a simple global currency and financial infrastructure that empowers billions of people”. The announcement has sparked fears that Libra could be <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebooks-libra-plan-talk-of-the-demise-of-central-banks-is-greatly-exaggerated-119165">a threat to traditional banks</a>, warnings to be <a href="https://theconversation.com/libra-four-reasons-to-be-extremely-cautious-about-facebooks-new-currency-119123">cautious</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-claims-libra-offers-economic-empowerment-to-billions-an-economist-is-skeptical-118982">sceptical commentary</a> of claims that it will help developing countries. But let’s go back to the basics and look at what Libra is, how it compares to other cryptocurrencies and whether you should be concerned about using it when it eventually arrives. What is a cryptocurrency? Currency is a system of money that is commonly used in exchange for goods and services and, as a result, holds value. Cryptocurrencies are digital currencies that are secured using cryptography. The more popular recent cryptocurrencies are based on blockchain technology which uses a cryptographic structure that is difficult to change. One of the key properties of this structure is a distributed ledger that keeps account of financial transactions, which anyone can access. What is Libra? Libra is a new currency that is being proposed by Facebook. It’s considered a cryptocurrency because cryptography will be used to help protect the value of the currency from tampering – such as double spending – and to protect the payment process. Libra has the potential to become successful because of the backing from the <a href="https://libra.org/en-US/association-council-principles/#overview">Libra Association</a>, which is made up of large international corporations such as Facebook, Uber and Vodafone. MasterCard and Visa have also thrown their hats in the ring, but no traditional banks are on the list. What’s different about Libra compared with other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin? Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are quite egalitarian in nature. That’s because there is no single authority that verifies transactions between parties, so anyone could potentially do it. To authorise a Bitcoin transaction you would have to prove that you have done the work, known as a “<a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work">proof of work</a>”. For Bitcoin, the proof of work is to solve a mathematical puzzle. People who successfully solve the puzzle (proving they have done some work), can add transactions to the blockchain distributed ledger and are rewarded with Bitcoins. The process is known as mining. The good thing about this is that it reduces fraud. Since anyone can potentially mine Bitcoins, it’s harder to collude as you wouldn’t know who the next person to mine a coin would be. And it’s simple to verify that the person is authorised because anyone can check that the puzzle has been solved correctly. Based on the <a href="https://mashable.com/article/facebook-libra-deep-dive/">initial descriptions of the currency</a>, it sounds like the difference with Libra is that it will verify transactions using a consensus system known as “<a href="https://blockgeeks.com/guides/proof-of-work-vs-proof-of-stake/">proof of stake</a>”, or a variation of this method. Under this system, transactions would be authorised by a group of people who have a stake or ownership in the currency. This makes it easier to predict who the next person to authorise a transaction might be (since there are a relatively small number of authorising group members), and then collude to launder funds without other group members knowing. It <a href="https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2019/06/18/how-to-become-a-founding-member-of-the-libra-association/">appears</a> the criteria to become a founding member of the Libra Association is to contribute a minimum of US$10 million entrance fee, have a large amount of money in the bank and be able to influence a large number of people. What are banks and regulators worried about? Cryptocurrencies affect governments and tax systems since they have little to no transaction costs when money is transferred across borders. So while the low transaction costs would be good for everyday users, the advent of a new cryptocurrency with a potentially very large user base has governments and traditional banks very concerned. While Libra is open source – meaning the source code is available for all to view, use and modify – it’s the members of the association who will be overseeing the currency. Libra could herald a shift away from traditional government taxes and banking fees to a new international monetary system controlled by corporate entities like Facebook and Uber. That’s a concern because of the lack of oversight from regulatory bodies. What should everyday people expect from Libra? The backing of software giants means it’s likely that the user interface for Libra coins would be smooth and simple to use. Low transaction costs would benefit users and the Libra Association promises to control the value of the currency so that it does not fluctuate as much as other cryptocurrencies. It’s unclear how they plan to do this. But value stability would be a great advantage in times of uncertainty. What are the risks? The everyday consumer probably wouldn’t know the difference between the “proof of work” and the “proof of stake” mechanisms. But since Facebook has a large database of users that are known to use Libra, it may be able to link Libra transactions to individuals. This could be a privacy concern. (Bitcoin transactions are anonymous because account numbers used in Bitcoin transactions are not linked to an individual’s identity.) Recent cybersecurity <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/australians-private-details-exposed-in-attack-on-westpac-s-payid-20190603-p51u2u.html">breaches</a> have contributed to a growing awareness of the vulnerabilities of IT systems. As with all software, the Libra implementation and management could be vulnerable to attack, which in turn could mean users could lose their money. But that is a risk that all cryptocurrency users face, whether they are aware of it or not. What steps could consumers take to protect themselves? No matter what cryptocurrency you choose to use, your funds are still accessible through the same interfaces: a web page or a mobile app. And the way you control access to your personal funds is by authenticating with a password. Make sure you keep your password safe by making sure it is complicated and hard to guess. Look for applications that allow you to use two-factor authentication and make sure it’s turned on. Libra is yet to prove its claims of making financial transactions safe and convenient. Only time will tell if its uptake will become widespread following its expected launch next year. Written by Ernest Foo. Republished with permission of <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/the-lowdown-on-libra-what-consumers-need-to-know-about-facebooks-new-cryptocurrency-119391" target="_blank">The Conversation.</a>

Money & Banking

5 tips to ensure your supermarket is listening to you on social media

Making yourself heard by big businesses can be tricky. Even when companies have a presence on social media, you might question whether they are genuinely interested in providing opportunities for meaningful dialogue. Is anyone really listening, or are we just talking to ourselves? There have been refreshing signs that supermarkets can be persuaded to listen to the demands of their customers. So how do you make yourself heard by retailers on social media? After qualitatively examining over <a href="https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/the-never-ending-story-discursive-legitimation-in-social-media-di">68,000 supermarket social media posts</a> with colleagues at the University of Nottingham, here are my five tips for communicating with corporations – and getting noticed. 1. Introduce yourself There are countless posts vying for attention in the virtual world of social media, so you need to carve out a unique voice. Why should the retailer listen to you? Begin by making it clear who you are. Start with: “As a loyal customer…”, “As a farmer…”, “As a woman…” or “As a dad…” and you give yourself an identity. Do you live near a polluted river that is full of discarded plastic bags? Are you a parent who volunteers in the local community and needs help? Have you been a loyal consumer for years? This is a strategy used particularly well by the #stopfundinghate campaign, which is targeting retailers who advertise in The Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <a href="https://twitter.com/coopuk?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@coopuk</a> As a member & regular shopper i would 💙 to see you <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/stopfundinghate?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#stopfundinghate</a>. Jars with <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/thecoopway?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#thecoopway</a> ethics?? Make a stand! <a href="https://twitter.com/StopFundingHate?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@StopFundingHate</a> — Dominique Wedge (@MistyWedge) <a href="https://twitter.com/MistyWedge/status/833970051111870464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2017</a></blockquote> Building authority is key to establishing a legitimate base upon which to launch your argument. Do not underestimate the voice of experience. 2. Back up your argument You may well have a valid point to make. But no amount of ANGRY CAPITAL LETTERS, repeated exclamation marks or sad face emojis will communicate a reasoned argument. Instead, a strong case can be built by linking to the content of the organisation’s own policy, relevant legislation, a news article, or even a key image or video: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> Tesco <a href="https://twitter.com/Tesco?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Tesco</a>, I wanted to buy Organic produce from you today but I kept walking. I bought my produce elseware today just because of your needless plastic packaging. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/refusingplastic?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#refusingplastic</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/organic?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#organic</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/tesco?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#tesco</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/plasticfree?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#plasticfree</a> <a href="https://t.co/AKL8WOclCv">pic.twitter.com/AKL8WOclCv</a> — Betty's Garden 🌻 (@BettyInCork) <a href="https://twitter.com/BettyInCork/status/957305468594065408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2018</a></blockquote> In lobbying supermarkets to stop stocking The Sun newspaper back in 2012, the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/no-more-page-3-our-grassroots-campaign-took-on-a-huge-corporation-and-we-won-9992371.html">“No More Page 3” (#NMP3) campaign</a> provided a masterclass in rational argument of an emotive issue. Through a whole host of <a href="https://twitter.com/NoMorePage3?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">social media discussions</a>, campaigners skilfully drew on <a href="http://proceedings.aom.org/content/2015/1/16085.short">facts, figures and feelings</a> to persuade retailers such as Tesco, Sainbury’s and the Co-op to stop selling The Sun newspaper until it removed Page 3. In a world of fake news, make sure you are armed with facts. 3. Go compare Competition between UK supermarkets is stiff – so holding retailers to account against their rivals is a great way to galvanise action. Back in 2013, Co-op bowed to social media pressure and announced that it would only sell “lads mags” that were covered by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/29/loaded-owner-cooperative-lads-mags-ban">“modesty wraps”</a>. Days later, Tesco did the same, saying it had <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23558211">“listened carefully”</a> to consumer suggestions (and perhaps those of its competitors). Today, we have seen a similar approach taken to the under-16 energy drink ban: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> VICTORY for <a href="https://twitter.com/jamieoliver?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jamieoliver</a> and the <a href="https://twitter.com/DailyMirror?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DailyMirror</a> on our energy drinks campaign that can make the nations children healthier. All these supermarkets have now banned the sale of energy drinks to under 16s ✅ Waitrose ✅ Aldi ✅ Asda ✅ Tesco ✅ Sainsburys ✅ Morrisons ✅ Lidl — Johnny Goldsmith (@MirrorJohnny) <a href="https://twitter.com/MirrorJohnny/status/956841243438469120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 26, 2018</a></blockquote> You can even compare supermarkets to themselves. Does the talk match the walk? Are there inconsistencies between what the supermarket said it would do, and what it actually did? 4. Tell a story On social media, arguments should be short and concise. But that doesn’t mean you can’t have a narrative. Making an emotional connection is key and what better way to do this than setting the scene with a dramatic plot, personal triumph, unresolved mystery, happy ending or tale of woe? On the topic of <a href="https://theconversation.com/whatever-happened-to-bans-on-gm-produce-in-british-supermarkets-51153">genetically modified organisms</a>, for example, we found evidence of retailers being construed both as villains (“I will no longer be shopping in your stores now you are to use GMO fed meat”) and heroes (“Thank you for your reassurance, I will continue to happily shop in your stores”). Characterisation helps to convey an opinion: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> Thanks for the heads up <a href="https://twitter.com/ProfTimLang?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ProfTimLang</a>, will start building my own network of trusted suppliers now, don't trust supermarkets anymore. not interested in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GMO?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GMO</a> corn fed chicken and all that crap. Sorry <a href="https://twitter.com/Tesco?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Tesco</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/asda?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@asda</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/LidlUK?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@LidlUK</a> etc. <a href="https://t.co/E7pT9vMAvE">https://t.co/E7pT9vMAvE</a> — Anna Lehmann (@BusterOnAir) <a href="https://twitter.com/BusterOnAir/status/951141308093075456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2018</a></blockquote> 5. Play devil’s advocate Social media is seen by some as something of a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/29/vortex-online-political-debate-arguments-trump-brexit">vortex</a> – a negative time drain that consumes far too much emotional energy. But there is a benefit to online rage, in that it makes conversations continue. The more vibrant and charged discussions involve a plurality of perspectives and some healthy antagonism, particularly around complex socio-political topics such as gender objectification or animal welfare. Keep fuelling the fire and stoking the debate with original and divisive opinions. Keep disagreeing with each other – and the companies. It is when organisational boundaries are truly tested that the real learning can occur. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> why is it going to take 5 years to replace plastic packaging with card or paper packaging? especially when compared with much larger stores like asda or tesco you do not have as many own label products as them? would be nice if could be done in 2 years — Kev (@kevcampbell) <a href="https://twitter.com/kevcampbell/status/955018179499188224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2018</a></blockquote> So whether it’s consumer reward schemes, customer convenience or issues of social responsibility, every comment in supermarket social media adds to the rich tapestry of online debate. There are ways to make yourself heard, and to improve the way retailers serve their customers. Social media channels can be effective online petri dishes for organisational learning – the companies just have to keep listening.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90634/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> Written by Sarah Glozer, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Business & Society, University of Bath. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-tips-to-ensure-your-supermarket-is-listening-to-you-on-social-media-90634">The Conversation</a>.

Retirement Income

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Walking or running: for the same distance, which consumes more energy?

Plastic Free July is a waste of time if the onus is only on consumers

Why prices are so high – 8 ways retail pricing algorithms gouge consumers

The 4 biggest gift-giving mistakes, according to a consumer psychologist

This law makes it illegal for companies to collect third-party data to profile you but they do anyway

Top tips for avoiding scams

New panel places the voice of aged care consumers at the centre

ACCC says consumers need more choices about what online marketplaces are doing with their data

New food database to help consumers understand nutrition

New food database to help consumers understand nutrition

The use of drones: What does the law say?

Aussies latest target in horrific new scam

“Shamefully weak”: Product recalls have tripled since 1998

Inventor promising rain to farmers for 50k denies "preying" on the desperate

“People are fed up”: Treasurer Josh Frydenberg asks ACCC to investigate banks who fail to pass on rate cuts

“Unacceptable”: Consumers rage as they’re left without phone or internet for days on end

Samsung in deep water over water resistant phone claims

5G health risks: Should consumers be worried?

What consumers need to know about Facebook’s new cryptocurrency

5 tips to ensure your supermarket is listening to you on social media

Our Partners