Here is a news article: Marketers and manufacturers that promote their products as Made in USA must meet the “all or virtually all” standard. This publication offers practical guidance on Made in USA claims.

 Introduction

 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is charged with preventing deception and unfairness in the marketplace. The FTC Act gives the Commission the power to bring law enforcement actions against false or misleading claims that a product is of U.S. origin. Traditionally, the Commission has required that a product advertised as Made in USA be "all or virtually all" made in the U.S. After a comprehensive review of Made in USA and other U.S. origin claims in product advertising and labeling, the Commission announced in December 1997 that it would retain the "all or virtually all" standard. The Commission also issued an Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims to provide guidance to marketers who want to make an unqualified Made in USA claim under the "all or virtually all" standard and those who want to make a qualified Made in USA claim.

 This publication provides additional guidance about how to comply with the "all or virtually all" standard. It also offers some general information about the U.S. Customs Service’s requirement that all products of foreign origin imported into the U.S. be marked with the name of the country of origin.

 This publication is the Federal Trade Commission staff’s view of the law’s requirements. It is not binding on the Commission. The Enforcement Policy Statement issued by the FTC is at the end of the publication.

 Basic Information About Made In USA Claims

 Must U.S. content be disclosed on products sold in the U.S.?

 U.S. content must be disclosed on automobiles and textile, wool, and fur products. There’s no law that requires most other products sold in the U.S. to be marked or labeled Made in USA or have any other disclosure about their amount of U.S. content. However, manufacturers and marketers who choose to make claims about the amount of U.S. content in their products must comply with the FTC’s Made in USA policy.

 What products does the FTC’s Made in USA policy apply to?

 The policy applies to all products advertised or sold in the U.S., except for those specifically subject to country-of-origin labeling by other laws. Other countries may have their own country-of-origin marking requirements. As a result, exporters should determine whether the country to which they are exporting imposes such requirements.

 What kinds of claims does the Enforcement Policy Statement apply to?

 The Enforcement Policy Statement applies to U.S. origin claims that appear on products and labeling, advertising, and other promotional materials. It also applies to all other forms of marketing, including marketing through digital or electronic mechanisms, such as Internet or e-mail.

 A Made in USA claim can be express or implied.

 Examples of express claims: Made in USA. "Our products are American-made." "USA."

 In identifying implied claims, the Commission focuses on the overall impression of the advertising, label, or promotional material. Depending on the context, U.S. symbols or geographic references (for example, U.S. flags, outlines of U.S. maps, or references to U.S. locations of headquarters or factories) may convey a claim of U.S. origin either by themselves, or in conjunction with other phrases or images.

 Example: A company promotes its product in an ad that features a manager describing the "true American quality" of the work produced at the company’s American factory. Although there is no express representation that the company’s product is made in the U.S., the overall — or net — impression the ad is likely to convey to consumers is that the product is of U.S. origin.

 Brand names and trademarks

 Ordinarily, the Commission will not consider a manufacturer or marketer’s use of an American brand name or trademark by itself as a U.S. origin claim. Similarly, the Commission is not likely to interpret the mere listing of a company’s U.S. address on a package label in a non-prominent way as a claim of U.S. origin.

 Example: A product is manufactured abroad by a well-known U.S. company. The fact that the company is headquartered in the U.S. also is widely known. Company pamphlets for its foreign-made product prominently feature its brand name. Assuming that the brand name does not specifically denote U.S. origin (that is, the brand name is not "Made in America, Inc."), using the brand name by itself does not constitute a claim of U.S. origin.

 Representations about entire product lines

 Manufacturers and marketers should not indicate, either expressly or implicitly, that a whole product line is of U.S. origin ("Our products are made in USA") when only some products in the product line are made in the U.S. according to the "all or virtually all" standard.

 Does the FTC pre-approve Made in USA claims?

 The Commission does not pre-approve advertising or labeling claims. A company doesn’t need approval from the Commission before making a Made in USA claim. As with most other advertising claims, a manufacturer or marketer may make any claim as long as it is truthful and substantiated.

 The Standard For Unqualified Made In USA Claims

 What is the standard for a product to be called Made in USA without qualification?

 For a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be "all or virtually all" made in the U.S. The term "United States," as referred to in the Enforcement Policy Statement, includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories and possessions.

 What does "all or virtually all" mean?

 "All or virtually all" means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content.

 What substantiation is required for a Made in USA claim?

 When a manufacturer or marketer makes an unqualified claim that a product is Made in USA, it should have — and rely on — a "reasonable basis" to support the claim at the time it is made. This means a manufacturer or marketer needs competent and reliable evidence to back up the claim that its product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.

 What factors does the Commission consider to determine whether a product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.?

 The product’s final assembly or processing must take place in the U.S. The Commission then considers other factors, including how much of the product’s total manufacturing costs can be assigned to U.S. parts and processing, and how far removed any foreign content is from the finished product. In some instances, only a small portion of the total manufacturing costs are attributable to foreign processing, but that processing represents a significant amount of the product’s overall processing. The same could be true for some foreign parts. In these cases, the foreign content (processing or parts) is more than negligible, and, as a result, unqualified claims are inappropriate.

 Example: A company produces propane barbecue grills at a plant in Nevada. The product’s major components include the gas valve, burner and aluminum housing, each of which is made in the U.S. The grill’s knobs and tubing are imported from Mexico. An unqualified Made in USA claim is not likely to be deceptive because the knobs and tubing make up a negligible portion of the product’s total manufacturing costs and are insignificant parts of the final product. Example: A table lamp is assembled in the U.S. from American-made brass, an American-made Tiffany-style lampshade, and an imported base. The base accounts for a small percent of the total cost of making the lamp. An unqualified Made in USA claim is deceptive for two reasons: The base is not far enough removed in the manufacturing process from the finished product to be of little consequence and it is a significant part of the final product.

 What items should manufacturers and marketers include in analyzing the percentage of domestic content in a particular product?

 Manufacturers and marketers should use the cost of goods sold or inventory costs of finished goods in their analysis. Such costs generally are limited to the total cost of all manufacturing materials, direct manufacturing labor, and manufacturing overhead.

 Should manufacturers and marketers rely on information from American suppliers about the amount of domestic content in the parts, components, and other elements they buy and use for their final products?

 If given in good faith, manufacturers and marketers can rely on information from suppliers about the domestic content in the parts, components, and other elements they produce. Rather than assume that the input is 100 percent U.S.-made, however, manufacturers and marketers would be wise to ask the supplier for specific information about the percentage of U.S. content before they make a U.S. origin claim.

 Example: A company manufactures food processors in its U.S. plant, making most of the parts, including the housing and blade, from U.S. materials. The motor, which constitutes 50 percent of the food processor’s total manufacturing costs, is bought from a U.S. supplier. The food processor manufacturer knows that the motor is assembled in a U.S. factory. Even though most of the parts of the food processor are of U.S. origin, the final assembly is in the U.S., and the motor is assembled in the U.S., the food processor is not considered "all or virtually all" American-made if the motor itself is made of imported parts that constitute a significant percentage of the appliance’s total manufacturing cost. Before claiming the product is Made in USA, this manufacturer should look to its motor supplier for more specific information about the motor’s origin. Example: On its purchase order, a company states: "Our company requires that suppliers certify the percentage of U.S. content in products supplied to us. If you are unable or unwilling to make such certification, we will not purchase from you." Appearing under this statement is the sentence, "We certify that our ___ have at least ___% U.S. content," with space for the supplier to fill in the name of the product and its percentage of U.S. content. The company generally could rely on a certification like this to determine the appropriate country-of-origin designation for its product.

 How far back in the manufacturing process should manufacturers and marketers look?

 To determine the percentage of U.S. content, manufacturers and marketers should look back far enough in the manufacturing process to be reasonably sure that any significant foreign content has been included in their assessment of foreign costs. Foreign content incorporated early in the manufacturing process often will be less significant to consumers than content that is a direct part of the finished product or the parts or components produced by the immediate supplier.

 Example: The steel used to make a single component of a complex product (for example, the steel used in the case of a computer’s floppy drive) is an early input into the computer’s manufacture, and is likely to constitute a very small portion of the final product’s total cost. On the other hand, the steel in a product like a pipe or a wrench is a direct and significant input. Whether the steel in a pipe or wrench is imported would be a significant factor in evaluating whether the finished product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.

 Are raw materials included in the evaluation of whether a product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.?

 It depends on how much of the product’s cost the raw materials make up and how far removed from the finished product they are.

 Example: If the gold in a gold ring is imported, an unqualified Made in USA claim for the ring is deceptive. That’s because of the significant value the gold is likely to represent relative to the finished product, and because the gold — an integral component — is only one step back from the finished article. By contrast, consider the plastic in the plastic case of a clock radio otherwise made in the U.S. of U.S.-made components. If the plastic case was made from imported petroleum, a Made in USA claim is likely to be appropriate because the petroleum is far enough removed from the finished product, and is an insignificant part of it as well.

 Qualified Claims

 What is a qualified Made in USA claim?

 A qualified Made in USA claim describes the extent, amount or type of a product’s domestic content or processing; it indicates that the product isn’t entirely of domestic origin.

 Example: "60% U.S. content." "Made in USA of U.S. and imported parts." "Couch assembled in USA from Italian Leather and Mexican Frame."

 When is a qualified Made in USA claim appropriate?

 A qualified Made in USA claim is appropriate for products that include U.S. content or processing but don’t meet the criteria for making an unqualified Made in USA claim. Because even qualified claims may imply more domestic content than exists, manufacturers or marketers must exercise care when making these claims. That is, avoid qualified claims unless the product has a significant amount of U.S. content or U.S. processing. A qualified Made in USA claim, like an unqualified claim, must be truthful and substantiated.

 Example: An exercise treadmill is assembled in the U.S. The assembly represents significant work and constitutes a "substantial transformation" (a term used by the U.S. Customs Service). All of the treadmill’s major parts, including the motor, frame, and electronic display, are imported. A few of its incidental parts, such as the handle bar covers, the plastic on/off power key, and the treadmill mat, are manufactured in the U.S. Together, these parts account for approximately three percent of the total cost of all the parts. Because the value of the U.S.-made parts is negligible compared to the value of all the parts, a claim on the treadmill that it is "Made in USA of U.S. and Imported Parts" is deceptive. A claim like "Made in U.S. from Imported Parts" or "Assembled in U.S.A." would not be deceptive.

 U.S. origin claims for specific processes or parts

 Claims that a particular manufacturing or other process was performed in the U.S. or that a particular part was manufactured in the U.S. must be truthful, substantiated, and clearly refer to the specific process or part, not to the general manufacture of the product, to avoid implying more U.S. content than exists.

 Manufacturers and marketers should be cautious about using general terms, such as "produced," "created" or "manufactured" in the U.S. Words like these are unlikely to convey a message limited to a particular process. Additional qualification probably is necessary to describe a product that is not "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.

 In addition, if a product is of foreign origin (that is, it has been substantially transformed abroad), manufacturers and marketers also should make sure they satisfy Customs’ markings statute and regulations that require such products to be marked with a foreign country of origin. Further, Customs requires the foreign country of origin to be preceded by "Made in," "Product of," or words of similar meaning when any city or location that is not the country of origin appears on the product.

 Example: A company designs a product in New York City and sends the blueprint to a factory in Finland for manufacturing. It labels the product "Designed in USA — Made in Finland." Such a specific processing claim would not lead a reasonable consumer to believe that the whole product was made in the U.S. The Customs Service requires the product to be marked "Made in," or "Product of" Finland since the product is of Finnish origin and the claim refers to the U.S. Examples of other specific processing claims are: "Bound in U.S. — Printed in Turkey." "Hand carved in U.S. — Wood from Philippines." "Software written in U.S. — Disk made in India." "Painted and fired in USA. Blanks made in (foreign country of origin)." Example: A company advertises its product, which was invented in Seattle and manufactured in Bangladesh, as "Created in USA." This claim is deceptive because consumers are likely to interpret the term "Created" as Made in USA — an unqualified U.S. origin claim. Example: A computer imported from Korea is packaged in the U.S. in an American-made corrugated paperboard box containing only domestic materials and domestically produced expanded rigid polystyrene plastic packing. Stating Made in USA on the package would deceive consumers about the origin of the product inside. But the company could legitimately make a qualified claim, such as "Computer Made in Korea — Packaging Made in USA." Example: The Acme Camera Company assembles its cameras in the U.S. The camera lenses are manufactured in the U.S., but most of the remaining parts are imported. A magazine ad for the camera is headlined "Beware of Imported Imitations" and states "Other high-end camera makers use imported parts made with cheap foreign labor. But at Acme Camera, we want only the highest quality parts for our cameras and we believe in employing American workers. That’s why we make all of our lenses right here in the U.S." This ad is likely to convey that more than a specific product part (the lens) is of U.S. origin. The marketer should be prepared to substantiate the broader U.S. origin claim conveyed to consumers viewing the ad.

 Comparative Claims

 Comparative claims should be truthful and substantiated, and presented in a way that makes the basis for comparison clear (for example, whether the comparison is to another leading brand or to a previous version of the same product). They should truthfully describe the U.S. content of the product and be based on a meaningful difference in U.S. content between the compared products.

 Example: An ad for cellular phones states "We use more U.S. content than any other cellular phone manufacturer." The manufacturer assembles the phones in the U.S. from American and imported components and can substantiate that the difference between the U.S. content of its phones and that of the other manufacturers’ phones is significant. This comparative claim is not deceptive. Example: A product is advertised as having "twice as much U.S. content as before." The U.S. content in the product has been increased from 2 percent in the previous version to 4 percent in the current version. This comparative claim is deceptive because the difference between the U.S. content in the current and previous version of the product are insignificant.

 Assembled in USA Claims

 A product that includes foreign components may be called "Assembled in USA" without qualification when its principal assembly takes place in the U.S. and the assembly is substantial. For the "assembly" claim to be valid, the product’s last "substantial transformation" also should have occurred in the U.S. That’s why a "screwdriver" assembly in the U.S. of foreign components into a final product at the end of the manufacturing process doesn’t usually qualify for the "Assembled in USA" claim.

 Example: A lawn mower, composed of all domestic parts except for the cable sheathing, flywheel, wheel rims and air filter (15 to 20 percent foreign content) is assembled in the U.S. An "Assembled in USA" claim is appropriate. Example: All the major components of a computer, including the motherboard and hard drive, are imported. The computer’s components then are put together in a simple "screwdriver" operation in the U.S., are not substantially transformed under the Customs Standard, and must be marked with a foreign country of origin. An "Assembled in U.S." claim without further qualification is deceptive.

 The FTC and The Customs Service

 What is the U.S. Customs Service’s jurisdiction over country-of-origin claims?

 The Tariff Act gives Customs and the Secretary of the Treasury the power to administer the requirement that imported goods be marked with a foreign country of origin (for example, "Made in Japan").

 When an imported product incorporates materials and/or processing from more than one country, Customs considers the country of origin to be the last country in which a "substantial transformation" took place. Customs defines "substantial transformation" as a manufacturing process that results in a new and different product with a new name, character, and use that is different from that which existed before the change. Customs makes country-of-origin determinations using the "substantial transformation" test on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, Customs uses a "tariff shift" analysis, comparable to "substantial transformation," to determine a product’s country of origin.

 What is the interaction between the FTC and Customs regarding country-of-origin claims?

 Even if Customs determines that an imported product does not need a foreign country-of-origin mark, it is not necessarily permissible to promote that product as Made in USA. The FTC considers additional factors to decide whether a product can be advertised or labeled as Made in USA.

 Manufacturers and marketers should check with Customs to see if they need to mark their products with the foreign country of origin. If they don’t, they should look at the FTC’s standard to check if they can properly make a Made in USA claim.

 The FTC has jurisdiction over foreign origin claims on products and in packaging that are beyond the disclosures required by Customs (for example, claims that supplement a required foreign origin marking to indicate where additional processing or finishing of a product occurred).

 The FTC also has jurisdiction over foreign origin claims in advertising and other promotional materials. Unqualified U.S. origin claims in ads or other promotional materials for products that Customs requires a foreign country-of-origin mark may mislead or confuse consumers about the product’s origin. To avoid misleading consumers, marketers should clearly disclose the foreign manufacture of a product.

 Example: A television set assembled in Korea using an American-made picture tube is shipped to the U.S. The Customs Service requires the television set to be marked "Made in Korea" because that’s where the television set was last "substantially transformed." The company’s World Wide Web page states "Although our televisions are made abroad, they always contain U.S.-made picture tubes." This statement is not deceptive. However, making the statement "All our picture tubes are made in the USA" — without disclosing the foreign origin of the television’s manufacture — might imply a broader claim (for example, that the television set is largely made in the U.S.) than could be substantiated. That is, if the statement and the entire ad imply that any foreign content or processing is negligible, the advertiser must substantiate that claim or net impression. The advertiser in this scenario would not be able to substantiate the implied Made in USA claim because the product was "substantially transformed" in Korea.

 Other Statutes

 What are the requirements of other federal statutes relating to country-of-origin determinations?

 Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Wool Products Labeling Act — Require a Made in USA label on most clothing and other textile or wool household products if the final product is manufactured in the U.S. of fabric that is manufactured in the U.S., regardless of where materials earlier in the manufacturing process (for example, the yarn and fiber) came from. Textile products that are imported must be labeled as required by the Customs Service. A textile or wool product partially manufactured in the U.S. and partially manufactured in another country must be labeled to show both foreign and domestic processing.

 On a garment with a neck, the country of origin must be disclosed on the front of a label attached to the inside center of the neck — either midway between the shoulder seams or very near another label attached to the inside center of the neck. On a garment without a neck, and on other kinds of textile products, the country of origin must appear on a conspicuous and readily accessible label on the inside or outside of the product.

 Catalogs and other mail order promotional materials for textile and wool products, including those disseminated on the Internet, must disclose whether a product is made in the U.S., imported or both.

 The Fur Products Labeling Act requires the country of origin of imported furs to be disclosed on all labels and in all advertising. For copies of the Textile, Wool or Fur Rules and Regulations, or the new business education guide on labeling requirements, call the FTC’s Consumer Response Center

 (202-382-4357). Or visit the FTC online at www.ftc.gov. Click on Consumer Protection.

 American Automobile Labeling Act — Requires that each automobile manufactured on or after October 1, 1994, for sale in the U.S. bear a label disclosing where the car was assembled, the percentage of equipment that originated in the U.S. and Canada, and the country of origin of the engine and transmission. Any representation that a car marketer makes that is required by the AALA is exempt from the Commission’s policy. When a company makes claims in advertising or promotional materials that go beyond the AALA requirements, it will be held to the Commission’s standard. For more information, call the Consumer Programs Division of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (202-366-0846).

 Buy American Act — Requires that a product be manufactured in the U.S. of more than 50 percent U.S. parts to be considered Made in USA for government procurement purposes. For more information, review the Buy American Act at 41 U.S.C. §§ 10a-10c, the Federal Acquisition Regulations at 48 C.F.R. Part 25, and the Trade Agreements Act at 19 U.S.C. §§ 2501-2582.

 What To Do About Violations

 What if I suspect noncompliance with the FTC’s Made in USA standard or other country-of-origin mislabeling?

 Information about possible illegal activity helps law enforcement officials target companies whose practices warrant scrutiny. If you suspect noncompliance, contact the Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580; (202) 326-2996 or send an e-mail to MUSA@ftc.gov. If you know about import or export fraud, call Customs’ toll-free Commercial Fraud Hotline, 1-800-ITS-FAKE. Examples of fraudulent practices involving imports include removing a required foreign origin label before the product is delivered to the ultimate purchaser (with or without the improper substitution of a Made in USA label) and failing to label a product with a required country of origin.

 You also can contact your state Attorney General and your local Better Business Bureau to report a company. Or you can refer your complaint to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus by calling (212) 754-1320. NAD handles complaints about the truth and accuracy of national advertising. You can reach the Council of Better Business Bureaus on the web at adweb.com/adassoc17.html.

 Finally, the Lanham Act gives any person (such as a competitor) who is damaged by a false designation of origin the right to sue the party making the false claim. Consult a lawyer to see if this private right of action is an appropriate course of action for you.

 For More Information

 The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint or to get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and investigative tool used by hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. ||||| Perhaps Walmart’s products aren’t as patriotic as they claim

 According to a report recently released by the advertising watchdog group, Truth in Advertising, over 100 products labeled on Walmart’s website as “Made in the USA” are, in fact, imported from other countries.

 The report found that both Walmart’s store brand products, such as Equate makeup sponges and tooth whitening strips, as well as other brands, such as Almay eyeliner, were falsely labeled as made in the United States.

 Some products clearly displayed contrary information, such as a red, white, and blue “made in the USA” logo on the front, with the words “Made in China” displayed on the back. Other products were stamped with the patriotic logo while the product specifications listed the item as imported.

 Walmart had an excuse, but the labels are magically gone

 While there is no official certification process for labeling a product “made in the USA,” a company can still be sued for false advertising if they misuse the label. However, rather than taking legal action, Truth in Advertising simply sent a letter to Walmart CEO, Doug McMillon, causing the retail chain some embarrassment, but sparing them the court room drama.

 Walmart responded by saying that some manufacturing of its store brands had recently moved to the United States, but the website hadn’t been update yet. However, many Made in USA labels were removed from the website after Truth in Advertising’s letter went public. As for other brands, Walmart claims that the country of origin information comes from the supplier.

 Great reminder to stay honest

 Unimpressed by these excuses, executive direction of Truth in Advertising, Bonnie Patten, says that the “largest retailer in the world should have made sure its American-made claims were accurate before affixing made in USA labels on the products. Until Walmart cleans up this mess, consumers cannot rely on Walmart with regard to where a product is really made when shopping on the site.”

 The report also argues that the website’s labels for “Made in USA” and “Assembled in USA,” with their tiny fonts and identical color schemes, are too similar to distinguish on the website, even though the Federal Trade Commission makes a clear differentiation between these two labels.

 All of this is an important reminder for businesses to stay honest in advertising. All it takes is a watchdog with an internet connection and keen eye to uncover false claims. ||||| While there is no official review process required for labeling a product as “Made in the U.S.A.,” a company can get into legal trouble for misusing that label, as doing so may constitute false advertising. A new report from an advertising watchdog group claims that Walmart’s website has more than 100 examples of products incorrectly marketed as made in America.

 According to a letter [PDF] recently sent by the group Truth In Advertising to Walmart CEO Doug McMillon, “Walmart’s website is mired in USA labeling errors.”

 Among the items singled out in the letter are Walmart’s Equate store-brand makeup sponges in the image at the top of this story. TINA says these were given the Made in the U.S.A. label on Walmart.com even though the product’s own packaging clearly states that they were “Made in China.”

 Another Equate-brand product called out by TINA are these teeth-whitening strips that the company simultaneously lists as made in America while declaring in the product details that they are imported form outside the country:

 In response to the TINA letter, Walmart told the group that manufacturing for both of these products was recently moved to the U.S. but that some stores may still contain versions made overseas and not all the information on the website is correct. Regardless, both items no longer carry the patriotic marketing message.

 It wasn’t just store-brand items that got the false “Made in U.S.A.” labels, according to the report. TINA’s letter gives the example of an Almay eyeliner that states the product is made and assembled here in the U.S., even though the packaging declares that it is “Made in Germany.” Walmart says that the country of origin information comes from the supplier.

 “False made in USA labeling on Walmart’s website has misled consumers looking to purchase American-made products,’’ said TINA.org Executive Director Bonnie Patten. “The largest retailer in the world should have made sure its American-made claims were accurate before affixing made in USA labels on the products. Until Walmart cleans up this mess, consumers cannot rely on Walmart with regard to where a product is really made when shopping on the site.”

 ============

 UPDATE: When reached for comment, a rep for Walmart provided the following statement to Consumerist —

 “We are continually working to improve our website listings and information. We are undertaking a more extensive quality assurance review to help eliminate these coding errors. Based on our initial internal review, we believe these errors are limited to a small percentage of items and we are confident in the overall integrity of the information on our website.”

 ============

 A more detailed report [PDF] commissioned by TINA looked at the actual “Made in the U.S.A.” labeling on Walmart.com and found a number of issues.

 This report noted that Walmart does little to differentiate its “Made in the U.S.A.” label from its “Assembled in the U.S.A.” label, even though the two labels have very different standards in the eyes of the Federal Trade Commission.

 “The legibility of the text at the top of the label, which can be either ‘Made in the’ or ‘Assembled in the’, is marginal even for people with excellent or corrected vision, due both to the text’s small size and the low contrast of light blue text on a white background,” writes the report’s author, Dr. Jeff Johnson, who notes that the problem is exacerbated for farsighted people or those looking at the site on a small-format screen. “If such people have not seen it earlier in larger format (e.g., on a product page), they would be unable to determine what it says. Even consumers who have seen that text already in larger format would, in search results, have trouble distinguishing ‘Made in the USA’ from ‘Assembled in the USA’.” |||||
A summary of this is?

– An advertising watchdog group warns you to beware of patriotic "Made in the USA" labels on some Walmart products, saying the company uses them far too liberally. The group Truth In Advertising sent Walmart CEO Doug McMillon a letter last week saying that "Walmart's website is mired in USA labeling errors," and ran down a few examples, per the Consumerist: The company's store brand Equate Beauty Wedge Applicator Sponges, formerly labeled "Made in the USA" on the website, "are made in China according to the product packaging," the letter says. Some "USA" labels conflict with the product information on the same Web page, according to the letter—including Equate 7 Day Dental Whitening System Advanced Whitening Wraps (imported) and Almay Intense I-color Liquid Eye Liner (made in Germany). Some USA labels ignore the fact that the product is only partly made, or is assembled rather than made, in the US, the letter adds. "False made in USA labeling on Walmart’s website has misled consumers looking to purchase American-made products," says TINA.org Executive Director Bonnie Patten. In response, Walmart says the two Equate products only recently located in the US—yet the "Made in the USA" label on them is now gone, the Consumerist notes. Walmart adds that it's undertaking "a more extensive quality assurance review" of its website. While there's no official standard for "Made in the USA" labeling, companies can get sued over it for false advertising, AGBeat reports. Click to see a more extensive TINA review of Walmart's "USA" labeling.


Write a summary based on this article:

On August 7, Deborah Skouson was desperate. Her daughter Cami, who has autism, loves to wear just one shirt—a pink flowered top from Target. But the shirt had become faded and unwearable. Skouson was able to find a few duplicates on eBay, but she needed more, so she turned to Facebook.

 She posted a request for anyone with a shirt like the one in the picture to sell it to her. She even offered to pay for shipping.

 [Placeholder for https://www.facebook.com/deborah.skouson/photos/10210349538202827 embed.]

 [Placeholder for https://www.facebook.com/lovewhatreallymatters/posts/1208686392487090 embed.]

 The request quickly went viral with over 22,000 shares overall, including one from a local TV news anchor and the Love What Really Matters page, which has over 4 million fans.

 Skouson told the Daily Dot via email that she has since received over 150 shirts. "We were hoping for 4–5 shirts to use as backups so we wouldn't have to keep washing and mending the same shirt over and over," she said. "At first, my daughter was a little confused to see more than one of her 'pink flower shirts.' I explained to her that people gave them to her because they loved her."

 Skouson said the shirts have come from as far away as Germany and England. She said one mother in the Philippines tried to mail her a shirt, but her post office would only send paper mail internationally. "She was very apologetic, and I assured her that her efforts meant so much more to us than the shirt," Skouson wrote.

 Cami who just turned 10, started the fifth grade on August 11. Skouson says that even though they have more shirts than they need, the offers keep coming and Target also contacted her, wanting to make larger versions of the shirt to fit Cami into adulthood.

 "I accepted their offer with tears streaming down my face," Skouson said. "The kindness being shown my little girl has been so beautiful."

 Skouson wrote that the support she has received has changed how she sees the internet, and she now feels more connected to people. Yet, even in the midst of all the love, Skouson noted that there has been some criticism.

 "There have been a few [people] stating that I shouldn't feed into my daughter's 'obsession,' and that I am setting her up for failure. I understand their point of view, but I'm her mother, and I know what is best for her. If the shirt makes her happy, I'm going to do everything in my power to find it for her." ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| A St. George mother's plea for a new shirt for her daughter with autism goes viral (Photo: Deborah Grimshaw Skouson)

 (KUTV) In case you need a reminder how powerful social media can be, here it is.

 Deborah Skouson of St. George needed to find a shirt for her 10-year-old daughter. But not just any shirt.

 It had to be a pink shirt with flowers and hearts -- and it had to be a specific brand and style.

 Her daughter Cami, who is autistic, has been “fixated” on her favorite shirt for the past five years. But, according to Skouson, the shirt had recently become unwearable, and they couldn’t find any place that was selling a new one – including eBay.

 So, Aug. 7, Skouson posted a plea on Facebook asking her social media friends for help.

 “We need another ‘pink flower shirt’, so will you please share this post or even just the photo?” Skouson wrote. “We will pay for the shirt and the shipping if someone would be kind enough to sell it to us. It has to be this exact shirt! We've tried similar shirts, and they don't cut it with Cami!”

 Within a week, the post had been shared thousands of times. As of Tuesday afternoon, Skouson said, she had either received or been promised 135 shirts – all the exact kind her daughter wanted.

 “It’s been very, very touching,” Skouson told 2News. “I am overwhelmed by people’s connection to this story.”

 Cami is the second of five children. Her mother said Cami likes things to stay the same, which is why giving up her beloved shirt was so difficult.

 Now, thanks to a Facebook post, things are much better.

 “It’s ballooned way bigger than I ever imagined,” Skouson said. |||||

– Ever since Deborah Skouson came home with a pink flowered shirt for her daughter five years ago, Cami, who has autism, has been "fixated" on it. It quickly became her favorite piece of clothing, leading Skouson to scour eBay each time her daughter's current shirt became unwearable. But the fifth time she sought a replacement, eBay's stock had run dry. That's when the Utah mom turned to Facebook, asking friends to share her request for the shirt along with her offer to pay whatever it cost, plus shipping. "It has to be this exact shirt!" Skouson wrote on Aug. 7. "We've tried similar shirts, and they don't cut it with Cami!" As of Thursday, no less than 150 matching shirts have arrived at her door from as far away as Germany, reports the Daily Dot. "At first, my daughter was a little confused to see more than one of her 'pink flower shirts.' I explained to her that people gave them to her because they loved her," says Skouson, a special education teacher, noting people have offered to make teddy bears, pillows, and blankets for her 10-year-old out of any extra shirts. She adds she tearfully accepted an offer from Target—which sells the Circo-brand item and heard about the story—to make larger versions of the shirt so Cami can wear it even when she's an adult. "It's been very, very touching," Skouson tells KUTV. "These are all total strangers," she wrote on Facebook. "People are inherently good and kind, and I'm glad I've been able to be a recipient of that kindness." (A photo of a cake decorated by someone with autism also went viral.)


Article:
Loic Venance/AFP/Getty Images

 The awards ceremony for the 2017 Cannes Film Festival took place on Sunday, culminating with a Palme d’Or win for Swedish director Ruben Östlund’s satire The Square, Variety reports. But the most satisfying win may have been Sofia Coppola’s Best Director award for The Beguiled: She is only the second female director in the festival’s 70-year history to win the award. The last time that happened, the award went to Soviet director Yuliya Solntseva for her World War II film The Story of the Flaming Years—in 1961. Coppola also has the distinction of being the first woman to win Best Director who attended the festival as a child the year her father’s film won the Palme d’Or; here she is looking adorable in 1979, when Apocalypse Now and The Tin Drum shared the award. (Her 8th birthday fell during the festival that year.)

 Coppola’s film, an adaptation of Thomas Cullinan’s Civil War novel about a wounded Union officer who is found by the residents of an all-girls boarding school, stars Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, Elle Fanning, and Colin Farrell and looks fantastic. (Don Siegel directed his own adaptation starring Clint Eastwood in 1971.) Kidman also received a special award in honor of the festival’s 70th anniversary; she appeared in four films that screened at Cannes this year, two of which were in competition.

 Advertisement

 Palme d’Or winner The Square, about a conceptual art exhibit that descends into chaos, stars Danish actor Claes Bang and features Elisabeth Moss and Dominic West. The Grand Prix went to BPM, Robin Campillo’s film about the French gay rights struggle focusing on ACT UP–Paris, while Loveless, Russian director Andrey Zvyagintsev’s story of a couple whose child goes missing, won the Jury Prize. Best Screenplay was a tie between The Lobster screenwriters Yorgos Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou and We Need to Talk About Kevin writer/director Lynne Ramsay for The Killing of a Sacred Deer and You Were Never Really Here, respectively. Acting awards went to Diane Kruger for In the Fade, her first German-language starring role, and Joaquin Phoenix for You Were Never Really Here. ||||| Sofia Coppola becomes the second woman to ever win for best director, while Joaquin Phoenix and Diane Kruger earned acting honors.

 The 70th annual Cannes Film Festival came to a close Sunday night with the main competition awards ceremony at the Palais des Festivals.

 The Square, by Swedish writer-director Ruben Ostlund, won the top prize, the Palme d'Or. The satire — the follow-up to Ostlund's 2014 international hit Force Majeure — explores Swedish art, commerce, politics and national identity and stars Claes Bang and Elisabeth Moss.

 The story centers on a man who is overseeing a new art installation called "The Square" — a sanctuary where anyone entering is supposed to abide by humanitarian values — but things quickly go awry.

 When he took the stage to accept his award, Ostlund led the crowd in a "scream of happiness" and told photographers to turn their cameras away from him and toward the audience. He counted down, and the audience let out a massive scream. "I can direct you all now because I won this prize," he said.

 Sofia Coppola became only the second woman to win the best director prize for her film The Beguiled, starring Nicole Kidman and Colin Farrell. Maren Ade accepted for Coppola, who was not present to receive her award. Ade ended the speech by thanking director Jane Campion for being a role model.

 While Coppola was not present, she did release this statement: "I was thrilled to get this movie made and it's such an exciting start to be honored in Cannes. I'm thankful to my great team and cast and to Focus and Universal for their support of women-driven films."

 The Grand Prix was awarded to 120 Beats per Minute by Robin Campillo, which follows 2013's Eastern Boys by mining his past as a member of AIDS activist group ACT UP in 1990s Paris.

 Nicole Kidman was honored with a special prize for the festival's 70th anniversary. The actress appeared in competition projects The Killing of a Sacred Deer and The Beguiled, along with the second season of Jane Campion's Top of the Lake and the film How to Talk to Girls at Parties. Will Smith accepted the award in her absence, and a special video message from Kidman was presented.

 Joaquin Phoenix was awarded the best actor prize for Lynne Ramsay's You Were Never Really Here. The actor stars as a hitman trying to save a teen prostitute.

 Diane Kruger received the best actress award for her work in In the Fade. Fatih Akin's courtroom and revenge drama saw the German actress doing a German-language film for the first time.

 In her speech, Kruger dedicated her award to victims of terror. "Those trying to pick up the pieces and go on after having lost everything, please know you are not alone," she said.

 Loveless, helmed by Russian writer-director Andrey Zvyagintsev, took the jury prize.

 In a surprise twist, best screenplay was awarded to both Killing of a Sacred Deer (written by Yorgos Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou) and Ramsay's You Were Never Really Here.

 The Palme d'Or for short film was given to A Gentle Night from Chinese director Qiu Yang. A special mention for short film was awarded to Teppo Airaksinen for Katto.

 The Camera d’Or, given to the best first film that played in the festival regardless of section, went to Leonor Serraille for Jeune Femme (Montparnasse-Bienvenüe).

 Nineteen movies screened in competition this year. The jury included president Pedro Almodovar and members Smith, Jessica Chastain, Fan Bingbing, Agnès Jaoui, Park Chan-wook, Ade, Paolo Sorrentino and Gabriel Yared. ||||| Director Ruben Ostlund reacts to winning the Palme d'Or award for his film The Square just after it was announced during the awards ceremony at the 70th international film festival, Cannes, southern France,... (Associated Press)

 Director Ruben Ostlund reacts to winning the Palme d'Or award for his film The Square just after it was announced during the awards ceremony at the 70th international film festival, Cannes, southern France, Sunday, May 28, 2017. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant) (Associated Press)

 CANNES, France (AP) — The Cannes Film Festival awarded its coveted Palme d'Or award to Ruben Ostlund's Swedish comedy "The Square" on Sunday, while Sofia Coppola became only the second woman to win the best director award.

 "Oh my god! OK," the Swedish filmmaker exclaimed after he bounded onto the stage to collect the prestigious Palme, in a rare and somewhat surprising win for a comedy.

 In "The Square," Claes Bang plays a museum director whose manicured life begins to unravel after a series of events that upset his, and the museum's, calm equilibrium. The movie's title comes from an art installation that Bang's character is prepping, which invites anyone who enters a small square to be kind and generous.

 The film's satire and exploration of moral dilemmas culminated in one of the festival's most eye-catching scenes. A muscled, grunting man pretending to be a gorilla upsets a black-tie dinner for the museum, sniffing attendees and dragging a woman by the hair.

 The president of the Cannes jury, Spanish filmmaker Pedro Almodovar, praised the film for exploring the "dictatorship" of political correctness and those trapped by it.

 "They live in a kind of hell because of that," Almodovar said.

 "It's clever. It's witty. It's funny. It deals with questions so important," said French actress and filmmaker Agnes Jaoui, a member of the jury that also included Americans Will Smith and Jessica Chastain.

 Most odds makers didn't have "The Square" as a favorite to win the prestigious Palme d'Or, the top prize awarded at Cannes.

 Coppola won best director for "The Beguiled," her remake of Don Siegel's 1971 Civil War drama about a Union soldier hiding out in a Southern girls' school. Hailed as Coppola's most feminist work yet, the remade thriller told from a more female point of view stars Nicole Kidman and Kirsten Dunst, with Colin Farrell playing the wounded soldier.

 Coppola was one of three female filmmakers out of 19 in competition for the Palme this year. The first — and until now, only — female winner of the best director prize was Soviet director Yuliya Ippolitovna Solntseva in 1961.

 Diane Kruger was named best actress and Joaquin Phoenix best actor as the festival celebrated its 70th anniversary.

 Kruger was honored for her performance in Fatih Akin's "In the Fade." She played a German woman whose son and Turkish husband are killed in a bomb attack. The film alludes to a series of actual killings that shook Germany six years ago, when it came to light that police had spent more time investigating the possible mob connections of migrant victims than the tell-tale signs of the far-right plot eventually uncovered.

 "I cannot accept this award without thinking about anyone who has ever been affected by an act of terrorism and who is trying to pick up the pieces and go on living after having lost everything," the actress said. "Please know that you are not forgotten."

 Phoenix was recognized for his role in Lynne Ramsay's thriller "You Were Never Really Here," in which he played a tormented war veteran trying to save a teenage girl from a sex trafficking ring.

 The actor wore sneakers on stage as he collected the prize. He said his leather shoes had been flown ahead of him. He apologized for his appearance, saying the prize was "totally unexpected."

 The French AIDS drama "120 Beats Per Minute" won the Grand Prize from the jury. The award recognizes a strong film that missed out on the Palme d'Or.

 Directed by Robin Campillo, the co-screenwriter of the Palme d'Or-winning film "The Class," the movie centers on the activist group ACT UP in Paris in the 1990s during the AIDS crisis.

 The film's docu-drama retelling of that painful period, combined with a burgeoning spirit of unity for the gay community, earned it some of the best reviews of the festival.

 Vanity Fair called the film "a vital new gay classic."

 Almodovar said: "I loved the movie."

 The jury also presented a special prize to Nicole Kidman to celebrate the festival's 70th anniversary.

 Kidman wasn't at the French Rivera ceremony, but sent a video message from Nashville, saying she was "absolutely devastated" to miss the show.

 Jury member Smith made the best of the situation, pretending to be Kidman.

 He fake-cried and said in halting French, "merci beaucoup madames et monsieurs."

 There were no prizes for the first Netflix releases selected to be in competition for the Palme d'Or: Bong Joon-ho's "Okja" and Noah Baumbach's "The Meyerowitz Stories."

 Almodovar had made clear beforehand that he didn't want the Palme to go to a movie that isn't shown on big screens. The Netflix selections prompted protests from French movie distributors and led Cannes to rule out, beginning next year, streaming-only films. |||||Summary:

– Sofia Coppola scored a historic victory at the Cannes Film Festival on Sunday night when she became only the second woman in the event's 70-year history to win the best director award. The American, who won with Civil War drama The Beguiled, is the first woman to win since Soviet director Yuliya Soltsneva, who was awarded the prize in 1961 for World War II movie The Story of the Flaming Years, Slate reports. The coveted Palme D'Or prize went to Swedish writer-director Ruben Ostlund's comedy The Square, the AP reports. Diane Kruger won best actress and Joaquin Phoenix was named best actor. Coppola, one of three women among the 19 directors in the competition this year, was not present to accept her prize but she released a statement saying it was an "exciting start" to be honored in Cannes. "I'm thankful to my great team and cast and to Focus and Universal for their support of women-driven films," she said, per the Hollywood Reporter. Beguiled star Nicole Kidman also missed the ceremony, where she was honored with a special prize to mark the festival's 70th anniversary. Jury member Will Smith collected it on her behalf, pretending to cry and saying, "Merci beaucoup madam and monsieurs!"


– The NSA is poring over pretty much all emails and texts sent across the border by Americans to look for information that might raise red flags, the New York Times reports. The revelation means that the NSA's surveillance of Americans is broader than was previously known: It's not just direct communication between an American and foreign targets that will be intercepted; it's any email or text about a such a target. As New York puts it, "If you mention a terrorist's email address or phone number to a friend overseas, the NSA intends to find out." The NSA temporarily copies most cross-border communications, the Times notes, and scans them. The expanded surveillance was mentioned, but largely overlooked, in information released by Edward Snowden in June. The ACLU calls it "dragnet surveillance" that will cause ordinary people to hesitate before discussing sensitive topics or visiting controversial websites for fear they will be monitored. “Individually, these hesitations might appear to be inconsequential, but the accumulation of them over time will change citizens’ relationship to one another and to the government.” A former NSA general counsel cites an example of how it could be useful: Say intel officials knew al-Qaeda was using a particular phone number for a specific plot. “If someone is sending that number out, chances are they are on the inside of the plot, and I want to find the people who are on the inside of the plot."

Expand this summary.

Photo: Charles Dharapak

 In response to Edward Snowden’s leaks, the government has tried to calm Americans by declaring that when it comes to online communications, “only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted.” The rest of the world still found that information pretty unsettling, and now the New York Times reports that it’s not exactly true for Americans anyway. The NSA is sifting through most e-mail and text communications in and out of the country, and their search isn’t limited to Americans who deal directly with foreign targets. According to a document leaked by Snowden, the NSA is also looking for “communications about the target that are not to or from the target.” If you mention a terrorist’s e-mail address or phone number to a friend overseas, the NSA intends to find out.

 The line was included in a list of rules about how the NSA can apply a 2008 law in which Congress approved warrantless eavesdropping, as long as the “target” was a foreigner abroad, and it was the only rule marked “top secret.” The document was posted online in June, but the line was mostly overlooked at the time.

 The Times reports that the NSA conducts surveillance on communications that cross the border by temporarily copying the data, then having a computer search for keywords that flag content for humans to examine. One senior intelligence officer argued that the process doesn’t amount to bulk data collection, since the search process takes seconds and the data isn’t stored. The official wouldn’t comment on how much data is processed, but computer scientists said that due to the way the messages are transmitted, the government would have to collect and reconstruct nearly all information crossing the border to make sense of it.

 Timothy Edgar, a former intelligence official in the Bush and Obama administrations, said there’s also “an ambiguity in the law about what it means to ‘target’ someone.” The government isn’t allowed to target Americans, but the conversation is fair game as long as one of the participants is a noncitizen outside the U.S. Even if the agency is examining communication from the American, technically the foreigner is the target. And thus, the president feels more comfortable declaring, “We don’t have domestic spying,” on the Tonight Show. ||||| Share

 Newly released documents confirm what critics have long suspected—that the National Security Agency, a component of the Defense Department, is engaged in unconstitutional surveillance of Americans' communications, including their telephone calls and emails. The documents show that the NSA is conducting sweeping surveillance of Americans' international communications, that it is acquiring many purely domestic communications as well, and that the rules that supposedly protect Americans' privacy are weak and riddled with exceptions.

 The FISA Amendment Act, signed into law by President Bush in 2008, expanded the government's authority to monitor Americans' electronic communications. Critics of the law feared the NSA would use the law to conduct broad surveillance of Americans' international communications and, in the process, capture an unknown quantity of purely domestic communications. Government officials contended that the law authorized surveillance of foreign nationals outside the United States—not of Americans—and that it included robust safeguards to protect Americans' privacy. Last year, in a successful effort to derail a constitutional challenge to the law, the Obama administration made these same claims to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 Now The Guardian has published two previously secret documents that show how the FISA Amendments Act is being implemented. One document sets out the government's "targeting procedures"—the procedures it uses to determine whether it has the authority to acquire communications in the first place. The other sets out the government's "minimization procedures"—the procedures that govern the retention, analysis, and dissemination of the communications it acquires. Both documents—the "Procedures"—have apparently been endorsed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees government surveillance in some national security cases.

 The Procedures are complex, but at least some of their flaws are clear.

 1. The Procedures permit the NSA to monitor Americans' international communications in the course of surveillance targeted at foreigners abroad.

 The NSA "is not listening to Americans' phone calls or monitoring their emails," the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee recently said, and many other government officials, including the president himself, have made similar assurances. But these statements are not true. While the FISA Amendments Act authorizes the government to target foreigners abroad, not Americans, it permits the government to collect Americans' communications with those foreign targets. Indeed, in advocating for the Act, government officials made clear that these "one-end-domestic" communications were the ones of most interest to them. The Procedures contemplate not only that the NSA will acquire Americans' international communications but that it will retain them and possibly disseminate them to other U.S. government agencies and foreign governments. Americans' communications that contain "foreign intelligence information" or evidence of a crime can be retained forever, and even communications that don't can be retained for as long as five years. Despite government officials' claims to the contrary, the NSA is building a growing database of Americans' international telephone calls and emails.

 2. The Procedures allow the surveillance of Americans by failing to ensure that the NSA's surveillance targets are in fact foreigners outside the United States.

 The Act is predicated on the theory that foreigners abroad have no right to privacy—or, at any rate, no right that the United States should respect. Because they have no right to privacy, the U.S. government sees no bar to the collection of their communications, including their communications with Americans. But even if one accepts the government's premise, the Procedures fail to ensure that the NSA's surveillance targets are in fact foreigners outside the United States. This is because the Procedures permit the NSA to presume that prospective surveillance targets are foreigners outside the United States absent specific information to the contrary—and to presume therefore that they are fair game for warrantless surveillance.

 3. The Procedures permit the government to conduct surveillance that has no real connection to the government's foreign intelligence interests.

 One of the fundamental problems with the Act is that it permits the government to conduct surveillance without probable cause or individualized suspicion. It permits the government to monitor people who aren't even thought to be doing anything wrong, and to do so without particularized warrants or meaningful review by impartial judges. Government officials have placed heavy emphasis on the fact that the Act allows the government to conduct surveillance only if one of its purposes is to gather "foreign intelligence information." That term, though, is defined very broadly to include not only information about terrorism but also information about intelligence activities, the national defense, and even "the foreign affairs of the United States." The Procedures weaken the limitation further. Among the things the NSA examines to determine whether a particular email address or phone number will be used to exchange foreign intelligence information is whether it has been used in the past to communicate with foreigners. Another is whether it is listed in a foreigner's address book. In other words, the NSA seems to equate a propensity to communicate with foreigners with a propensity to communicate foreign intelligence information. The effect is to bring virtually every international communication within the reach of the NSA's surveillance.

 4. The Procedures permit the NSA to collect international communications, including Americans' international communications, in bulk.

 On its face, the Act permits the NSA to conduct dragnet surveillance, not just surveillance of specific individuals. Officials who advocated for the Act made clear that this was one of its principal purposes, and unsurprisingly, the Procedures give effect to that design. While they require the government to identify a "target" outside the country, once the target has been identified the Procedures permit the NSA to sweep up the communications of any foreigner who may be communicating "about" the target. The Procedures contemplate that the NSA will do this by "employ[ing] an Internet Protocol filter to ensure that the person from whom it seeks to obtain foreign intelligence information is located overseas," by "target[ing] Internet links that terminate in a foreign country," or by identifying "the country code of the telephone number." However the NSA does it, the result is the same: millions of communications may be swept up, Americans' international communications among them.

 5. The Procedures allow the NSA to retain even purely domestic communications.

 Given the permissive standards the NSA uses to determine whether prospective surveillance targets are foreigners abroad, errors are inevitable. Some of the communications the NSA collects under the Act, then, will be purely domestic. (Notably, a 2009 New York Times article discusses an episode in which the NSA used the Act to engage in "significant and systemic" overcollection of such domestic communications.) The Act should require the NSA to purge these communications from its databases, but it does not. The Procedures allow the government to keep and analyze even purely domestic communications if they contain significant foreign intelligence information, evidence of a crime, or encrypted information. Again, foreign intelligence information is defined exceedingly broadly. The result is that the NSA is steadily building a database of Americans' purely domestic calls and emails.

 6. The Procedures allow the government to collect and retain communications protected by the attorney–client privilege.

 The Procedures expressly contemplate that the NSA will collect attorney–client communications. In general, these communications receive no special protection—they can be acquired, retained, and disseminated like any other. Thus, if the NSA acquires the communications of lawyers representing individuals who have been charged before the military commissions at Guantanamo, nothing in the Procedures would seem to prohibit the NSA from sharing the communications with military prosecutors. The Procedures include a more restrictive rule for communications between attorneys and their clients who have been criminally indicted in the United States—the NSA may not share these communications with prosecutors. Even those communications, however, may be retained to the extent that they include foreign intelligence information.

 7. The Procedures contemplate that the NSA will maintain "knowledge databases" containing sensitive information about Americans.

 To determine whether a target is a foreigner abroad, the Procedures contemplate that the NSA will consult various NSA databases containing information collected by it and other agencies through signals intelligence, human intelligence, law enforcement, and other means. These databases—referred to as "NSA content repositories" and "knowledge databases"—apparently house internet data, including metadata that reveals online activities, as well as telephone numbers and email addresses that the agency has reason to believe are being used by U.S. persons. The Procedures' reference to "Home Location Registers," which receive updates whenever a phone "moves into a new service area," suggests that the NSA also collects some form of location information about millions of Americans' cellphones. The Procedures do not say what limits apply to these databases or what safeguards, if any, are in place to protect Americans' constitutional rights.

 8. The Procedures allow the NSA to retain encrypted communications indefinitely.

 The Procedures permit the NSA to retain, forever, all communications—even purely domestic ones—that are encrypted. The use of encryption to protect data is a routine and sometimes legally required practice by financial organizations, health care providers, and real-time communications services (like Skype and Apple's FaceTime). Accordingly, the Procedures permit the NSA to retain huge volumes of Americans' most sensitive information. ||||| WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency is searching the contents of vast amounts of Americans’ e-mail and text communications into and out of the country, hunting for people who mention information about foreigners under surveillance, according to intelligence officials.

 The N.S.A. is not just intercepting the communications of Americans who are in direct contact with foreigners targeted overseas, a practice that government officials have openly acknowledged. It is also casting a far wider net for people who cite information linked to those foreigners, like a little used e-mail address, according to a senior intelligence official.

 While it has long been known that the agency conducts extensive computer searches of data it vacuums up overseas, that it is systematically searching — without warrants — through the contents of Americans’ communications that cross the border reveals more about the scale of its secret operations.

 It also adds another element to the unfolding debate, provoked by the disclosures of Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, about whether the agency has infringed on Americans’ privacy as it scoops up e-mails and phone data in its quest to ferret out foreign intelligence.

 Government officials say the cross-border surveillance was authorized by a 2008 law, the FISA Amendments Act, in which Congress approved eavesdropping on domestic soil without warrants as long as the “target” was a noncitizen abroad. Voice communications are not included in that surveillance, the senior official said.

 Asked to comment, Judith A. Emmel, an N.S.A. spokeswoman, did not directly address surveillance of cross-border communications. But she said the agency’s activities were lawful and intended to gather intelligence not about Americans but about “foreign powers and their agents, foreign organizations, foreign persons or international terrorists.”

 “In carrying out its signals intelligence mission, N.S.A. collects only what it is explicitly authorized to collect,” she said. “Moreover, the agency’s activities are deployed only in response to requirements for information to protect the country and its interests.”

 Hints of the surveillance appeared in a set of rules, leaked by Mr. Snowden, for how the N.S.A. may carry out the 2008 FISA law. One paragraph mentions that the agency “seeks to acquire communications about the target that are not to or from the target.” The pages were posted online by the newspaper The Guardian on June 20, but the telltale paragraph, the only rule marked “Top Secret” amid 18 pages of restrictions, went largely overlooked amid other disclosures.

 To conduct the surveillance, the N.S.A. is temporarily copying and then sifting through the contents of what is apparently most e-mails and other text-based communications that cross the border. The senior intelligence official, who, like other former and current government officials, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic, said the N.S.A. makes a “clone of selected communication links” to gather the communications, but declined to specify details, like the volume of the data that passes through them.

 Computer scientists said that it would be difficult to systematically search the contents of the communications without first gathering nearly all cross-border text-based data; fiber-optic networks work by breaking messages into tiny packets that flow at the speed of light over different pathways to their shared destination, so they would need to be captured and reassembled.

 The official said that a computer searches the data for the identifying keywords or other “selectors” and stores those that match so that human analysts could later examine them. The remaining communications, the official said, are deleted; the entire process takes “a small number of seconds,” and the system has no ability to perform “retrospective searching.”

 The official said the keyword and other terms were “very precise” to minimize the number of innocent American communications that were flagged by the program. At the same time, the official acknowledged that there had been times when changes by telecommunications providers or in the technology had led to inadvertent overcollection. The N.S.A. monitors for these problems, fixes them and reports such incidents to its overseers in the government, the official said.

 The disclosure sheds additional light on statements intelligence officials have made recently, reassuring the public that they do not “target” Americans for surveillance without warrants. |||||


Article:
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption From mouth-watering steak to eye-watering bill in Venice

 The mayor of Venice has voiced outrage over the €1,100 (£970; $1,347) bill that four Japanese tourists say they had to pay for four steaks, a plate of fried fish, water and service.

 The four students complained to police after getting the eye-watering bill at a restaurant near St Mark's Square.

 Three women with them chose another restaurant - but even they ended up paying €350 for three plates of seafood pasta, Italian media report.

 The mayor has vowed to get justice.

 "We will thoroughly examine this episode, we'll check to see if the complaint was made properly," Mayor Luigi Brugnaro tweeted.

 "If this disgraceful episode is confirmed, we'll do all we can to punish those responsible. We are for justice - always!"

 The four Japanese men complained to police on returning to Bologna, where they are students. Their case has been taken up by Marco Gasparinetti, spokesman for a Venice residents' forum called "Gruppo 25 Aprile".

 Image copyright AFP Image caption Spectacular St Mark's Square is a highlight of any Venice tour

 Italian media did not name the restaurant, but said it was owned by a Chinese woman and run by an Egyptian.

 According to Mr Gasparinetti, only 1.1% of restaurants in that part of Venice are owned by locals, and the figure is 50% in the historic centre as a whole.

 He said Gruppo 25 Aprile would post advice for tourists this week on Facebook to help them avoid such a "mockery". There have been many cases of restaurants overcharging tourists in Venice, he said.

 "We defend local residents and whoever puts the good name of Venice at risk harms all Venetians," the group said in a tweet.

 You may also like: ||||| (ANSA) - Venice, January 22 - Four Japanese tourists were slapped with a 1,143-euro ($1,350) bill for a meal in Venice.

 The four had four steaks, a fried-fish platter and mineral water in the osteria near St Mark's Square, according to early reports.

 later reports said the steaks were large 'Fiorentine" cuts, that the fish was for four and not just a single platter, an that they may have had very expensive Amarone wine as well as water - and costly aperitifs before the meal.

 On Monday the four filed a complaint with police in Bologna, where they are resident as students.

 Venice police have opened a probe after a complaint from the 25 Aprile association, which broke the story.

  ||||| “You’re welcome but you have to spend,” Mayor Luigi Brugnaro told tourists after a series of incidents in which foreigners claimed they were ripped off at restaurants in the centre of Venice.

 READ MORE: Gondoliers despair as tourists spend ride staring at phones

 He called a British family who said they were recently charged more than €500 for lunch near St Mark’s Square “cheapskates” for disputing the bill.

 “What they paid was fair,” Brugnaro told Sky TG24 when asked about the story, which came to light when one of the tourists wrote to the mayor’s office to complain.

 “In fact I applaud the restauranteur who issued the bill, it shows once again that in Venice things are done legally.

 “If you come to Venice, you should know that you’re Venice, you have to spend some money. In fact, leave a tip for all the people who are there working for you.”

 READ MORE: Venice to restrict cruise ship access to protect its historic buildings

 British tourist Luke Tang accused the Trattoria Casanova of taking advantage of the fact that neither he nor his parents speak Italian to bring them several expensive seafood dishes they hadn’t ordered, racking up a bill of €526.

 He paid in full but wrote to Brugnaro to highlight “a kind of behaviour that risks ruining Venice’s reputation”.

 His letter of complaint was “returned to sender”, according to the mayor.

 “Someone eats and drinks, then says they don’t understand the language,” Brugnaro said. “But if you come to Italy you should learn Italian, a bit of Venetian wouldn’t hurt either.”

 Venice is not alone in charging premium prices, Brugnaro insisted. In a tweet on Sunday, he posted a photo of an €11 bill for four coffees from a café in Austria, asking: “Who should I write to about this bill standing at the bar in Vienna airport!?”

 ..e per questo scontrino in piedi al bar dell’aeroporto di Vienna a chi dovrei scrivere!? Ai giornali o al povero sindaco di quella Città !? Ai “sempre contro nostrani”, a quelli della serie “so tutto mi” che gioiscono se Venezia viene attaccata, a loro invece rispondo ciao👋 😀 pic.twitter.com/Dzr264x2UQ — Luigi Brugnaro (@LuigiBrugnaro) November 12, 2017

 While the mayor remains defiant, a citizens’ group lamented his attitude to Venice’s millions of visitors. The city’s leaders are “selling Venice by the pound,” said a statement from the April 25 Group, a collective that claims to represent ordinary Venetians.

 “By mocking a British citizen for not speaking Italian or Venetian, as if this could be an acceptable alibi for ripping off our visitors, this mayor may give the impression that this is common practice in Venice – which is not the case – and cannot speak in our name,” the group said.

 Selling Venice by the pound? NOT IN OUR NAME https://t.co/YawlnHwaNm pic.twitter.com/gUWqRyhL7Q — Gruppo25Aprile (@25aprileVenezia) November 12, 2017

 Tang’s was the second incident to come to light in the space of a week.

 Earlier this month, a Japanese couple complained that they were charged €120 for a plate of lobster pasta at another trattoria in central Venice, accusing the restaurant of taking advantage of the fact that the price was calculated by weight to overcharge them. With the help of another customer, they eventually got the bill reduced by 40 percent.

 In the past, tourists have been the ones accused of bad behaviour in Venice, including driving in the car-free centre, bathing in its historic fountains, and urinating in public.

 Brugnaro came to power on a promise to rein in Venice’s vast tourism industry, which residents have long complained makes the city unliveable.

 Earlier this year he introduced a swathe of measures designed to reduce the crowds that flood its most popular sites, ranging from limiting tourist accommodation to installing automatic people-counters in high-traffic areas.

 Last week Italy's national government approved plans to ban cruise ships from the centre of Venice. |||||Summary:

– Four Japanese tourists were reportedly taken to the cleaners by a Venice restaurant, and now authorities are looking into the meal. ANSA reports the tourists ordered four steaks and a platter of grilled fish—no wine, just mineral water. The spot near St. Mark's Square reportedly charged them $1,350 for the meal; they paid the tab then filed a complaint Monday. Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro pledged to get to the bottom of the matter: "If this shameful episode is confirmed, we’ll do all we can to punish those responsible. We are for justice, always!" he said, per the Guardian. But ANSA notes the story gets a little mushy, with other reports claiming the group ordered hearty "Fiorentine" cuts of beef, that the fish dish was sized to serve four, and that they drank aperitifs and pricey Amarone wine. A rep for the unnamed restaurant is said to have told local media that he had "no recollection of any problems with Japanese customers." The BBC reports the four males are studying in Bologna, and complained upon their return to that city. It's a bit of a changed tune for Brugnaro, who the Local reported in November labeled a British family of three "cheapskates" for complaining over a $650 lunch they had in the same area; they alleged the restaurant took advantage of their inability to speak Italian and brought them pricey dishes they hadn't said they wanted. "What they paid was fair," Brugnaro said. "If you come to Venice, you should know that you're Venice, you have to spend some money." He added, "You should learn Italian, a bit of Venetian wouldn’t hurt either." (This tourist died after a "foolish" move in Australia.)


Summarize this article:

By Kwon Ji-youn

 The world's longest filibuster went into the books Wednesday evening, leaving behind a host of records.

 During the session, which began at 7.07 p.m. last Tuesday, 39 opposition lawmakers spoke for 192 hours and 25 minutes to block the vote on a disputed anti-terrorism bill that they claim will threaten personal freedom and privacy if passed into law.

 On Wednesday, Rep. Lee Jong-kul, floor leader of the main opposition Minjoo Party of Korea, delivered an emotion-laden speech as the 39th and the last speaker of the filibuster. He spoke for 12 hours and 31 minutes to shatter the record for the longest filibuster set by fellow lawmaker Rep. Jung Cheong-rae on Sunday.

 It was the first filibuster in Korea in 47 years. Here is a closer look at the numbers:

 47 years

 The filibuster is Korea's first since 1969. A filibuster is a parliamentary procedure that allows Assembly members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal through speeches.

 192 hours 25 minutes

 The world's longest filibuster began at 7.07 p.m. last Tuesday and ended its nine-day run at 7:32 p.m. on Wednesday. A Canadian party set the previous world record of 57 hours in 2011.

 39 lawmakers

 Thirty-nine opposition lawmakers strongly opposed the anti-terrorism bill proposed by Rep. Lee Cheol-woo of the governing party, aimed at giving the National Intelligence Service (NIS) the authority to collect information on private communications, travel and financial transactions of potential terrorists.

 The MPK argues that there is a great possibility that the spy agency will abuse its power and use the law to monitor civilians and opposition lawmakers.

 751 minutes

 Rep. Lee Jong-kul, the 38th and last speaker of the filibuster, spoke for 12 hours and 31 minutes, or 751 minutes, breaking a record set by fellow lawmaker Rep. Jung Cheong-rae.

 5,000 spectators

 More than 5,000 Korean citizens visited the National Assembly to watch the opposition lawmakers engaged in non-stop speeches to block the vote on a disputed anti-terrorism bill after Assembly Speaker Chung Ui-hwa exercised his authority to put the bill to a vote.

 1984

 The most-mentioned book by lawmakers was "1984," a dystopian novel by English author George Orwell published in 1949. The novel is set in a world of perpetual war, government surveillance and public manipulation, dictated by a political system that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as a "thought crime." ||||| 2016/03/02 20:05

 SEOUL, March 2 (Yonhap) -- The main opposition party ended its vote-blocking marathon filibuster Wednesday, opening the door for the normalization of parliament that has been paralyzed due to the political standoff over a government-backed anti-terrorism bill.

 Lee Jong-kul, floor leader of the main opposition Minjoo Party of Korea, stood at the podium of the National Assembly chamber as the last speaker, putting an end to the marathon monologues that started on Feb. 23.

 "Everyone participated with enthusiasm," Lee said, reiterating that the bill infringes upon the privacy rights of the citizens.

 A total of 49 lawmakers took turns speaking around the clock in opposition to the bill, claiming it would give too much power to the intelligence agency. The legislators took their time reading related bills or academic papers on privacy infringement.

 The party leadership initially promised to halt the delaying tactic on Tuesday on concerns that the indefinite speeches, if prolonged, could cause public backlash over the delay in the parliamentary endorsement of several important bills,

 Lawmakers will vote on the anti-terrorism bill during a plenary session scheduled for later on Wednesday.

 It is very likely that the bill will be passed, as the ruling Saenuri Party controls 157 seats in the 293-member National Assembly.

 President Park Geun-hye has repeatedly called on the National Assembly to pass the stalled bill to better protect the lives of South Koreans, citing a string of attacks around the world and threats from North Korea.

 The opposition bloc, however, raised concerns over breaches of privacy such as allowing the National Intelligence Service to collect personal data on anyone suspected of posing a threat to national security.

 Lawmakers will also pass a bipartisan deal on redrawing electoral districts for the upcoming general elections in April.

 The Saenuri Party and Minjoo Party were in agreement to hold a plenary session to deliberate the deal on remapping electoral districts for the April 13 polls.

 Separately, a bill aimed at improving North Korea's human rights condition will also be taken to the floor for a vote.

 If passed, the North Korean human rights bill will end some 11 years of partisan bickering over how best to influence Pyongyang to change.

 Among other things, the bill calls for a concerted effort to improve the North's human rights situation and set up a center tasked with investigating human rights abuses.

 Lee Jong-kul, floor leader of the main opposition Minjoo Party of Korea, speaks at the National Assembly on March 2, 2016, as part of the party's filibuster against an anti-terrorism bill. (Yonhap)

 khj@yna.co.kr

 (END) ||||| Media caption Opposition MPs took turns speaking at the podium for five hours at a time

 South Korean opposition lawmakers have set what appears to be a new world record for a combined filibuster after speaking for 192 hours.

 Nearly nine days of non-stop speeches included rambling monologues and long chunks of George Orwell's novel 1984.

 Some of the MPs wore trainers to help them stay on their feet for hours.

 They wanted to block an anti-terror bill they said put personal freedoms at risk, but failed. The bill was passed hours after the filibuster ended.

 A Canadian party had set the previous world record for combined filibustering, notching up 57 hours in 2011.

 The art of the filibuster: How to talk for 24 hours straight

 Filibustering is a parliamentary delaying tactic by which MPs drag out speeches to the end of the allocated time, so that no vote can be held.

 South Korea's marathon attempt was spearheaded by the main opposition party Minjoo which was joined by other smaller parties, and began last Tuesday, 23 February.

 Image copyright AFP/Getty Images Image caption Some lawmakers came with large stacks of articles and wore trainers for their lengthy speeches

 Image copyright EPA Image caption The parliament chair was spotted dozing off during the marathon session

 As well as some lawmakers being spotted wearing trainers, others reportedly refrained from drinking water so that they could cut down on loo breaks in order to keep on speaking.

 Tactics employed also included reading out lengthy academic articles in full as well as news stories and internet comments.

 In all 38 lawmakers are reported to have taken part.

 Filibustering around the world

 One of the longest individual filibusters in history came in 1957, when US Senator Strom Thurmond spoke for more than 24 hours against civil rights reforms

 Texas state Senator Wendy Davis spoke for more than 10 hours in 2013 to block a bill that would shut most abortion clinics in the US state

 In December 2010 Austrian Green MP Werner Kogler made a speech lasting 12 hours and 42 minutes

 In 1935 US Louisiana Democrat Huey Long tried to defeat a bill by speaking for more than 15 hours, reciting recipes for Roquefort salad dressing and fried oysters

 In 1936 the Independent Unionist MP Tommy Henderson spoke for almost 10 hours straight in the Parliament of Northern Ireland

 Jung Cheong-rae spoke for 11 hours 39 minutes and Minjoo floor leader Lee Jong-Kul ended the filibuster with a speech of more than 12 hours.

 They would have succeeded if they had managed to hold out until the end of the parliamentary session at midnight on 10 March.

 But as the days wore on they faced increasing public criticism, as the filibuster was delaying the passage of bills on North Korean human rights and electoral districts for April's general election.

 The ruling Saenuri Party has a majority of seats in parliament and nearly 160 members voted for the bill, with one against it, the Associated Press reported. Opposition lawmakers abstained, reports said.

 President Park Geun-hye condemned the filibuster as "nothing more than a dereliction of duty".

 The legislation allows intelligence services to collect a wide range of personal information - including phone records - on anyone deemed to pose a security risk.

 Opposition parties said it would violate privacy rights and could be used to stifle political dissent. |||||

– Think Wendy Davis' 10-hour filibuster was impressive? That was nothing compared to what dozens of lawmakers in South Korea just accomplished in the country's first filibuster in 47 years. For 192 hours and 25 minutes—or almost nine days—beginning Feb. 23, opposition Members of Parliament rambled on in an attempt to block an anti-terror bill proposed by a member of the governing party, report the BBC and Korea Times. The goal was to get to the end of the parliamentary session on March 10, but the filibuster came to a close Wednesday after attacks by the country's leaders. The bill passed hours later. At least the lawmakers still have something to show for their efforts: They smashed the world record for filibustering set in 2011 when Canadian lawmakers delayed proceedings for 57 hours. The last speaker alone spoke for 12 hours and 31 minutes to claim the record for longest individual filibuster in South Korea. Speakers wore running shoes, thumbed through huge stacks of documents, read academic articles and online comments on privacy infringement in their entirety, and recited sections of George Orwell's 1984, per Yonhap News. It was unsurprising, then, that the parliament chair was caught sleeping. The lawmakers argued the anti-terror bill—allowing for the collection of data, including phone records, on people considered security risks—would violate privacy rights, but President Park Geun-hye said the filibuster was "nothing more than a dereliction of duty." The public was also peeved that the stunt held up bills regarding North Korean human rights and an upcoming election.