You for Sale: Company Envisions ‘Vaults’ for Personal Data


Peter DaSilva for The New York Times


Michael Fertik, the founder and chief executive of Reputation.com, at its offices in Redwood City, Calif., where he has amassed a database of information collected on millions of consumers.





“YOU are walking around naked on the Internet and you need some clothes,” says Michael Fertik. “I am going to sell you some.”


Naked? Not exactly, but close.


Mr. Fertik, 34, is the chief executive of Reputation.com, a company that helps people manage their online reputations. From his perch here in Silicon Valley, he views the digital screens in our lives, the smartphones and the tablets, the desktops and the laptops, as windows of a house. People go about their lives on the inside, he says, while dozens of marketing and analytics companies watch through the windows, sizing them up like peeping Toms.


By now many Americans are learning that they are living in a surveillance economy. “Information resellers,” also known as “data brokers,” have collected hundreds to thousands of details — what we buy, our race or ethnicity, our finances and health concerns, our Web activities and social networks — on almost every American adult. Other companies that specialize in ranking consumers use computer algorithms to covertly score Internet users, identifying some as “high-value” consumers worthy of receiving pitches for premium credit cards and other offers, while dismissing others as a waste of time and marketing money. Yet another type of company, called an ad-trading platform, profiles Internet users and auctions off online access to them to marketers in a practice called “real-time bidding.”


As these practices have come to light, several members of Congress, and federal agencies, have opened investigations.


At least for now, however, these companies typically do not permit consumers to see the records or marketing scores that have been compiled about them. And that is perfectly legal.


Now, Mr. Fertik, the loquacious, lion-maned founder of Reputation.com, says he has the free-market solution. He calls it a “data vault,” or “a bank for other people’s data.”


Here at Reputation.com’s headquarters, a vast open-plan office decorated with industrial-looking metal struts and reclaimed wood — a discreet homage to the lab where Thomas Edison invented the light bulb — his company has amassed a database on millions of consumers. Mr. Fertik plans to use it to sell people on the idea of taking control of their own marketing profiles. To succeed, he will have to persuade people that they must take charge of their digital personas.


Pointing out the potential hazards posed by data brokers and the like is part of Mr. Fertik’s M.O. Covert online profiling and scoring, he says, may unfairly exclude certain Internet users from marketing offers that could affect their financial, educational or health opportunities — a practice Mr. Fertik calls “Weblining.” He plans to market Reputation.com’s data vault, scheduled to open for business early next year, as an antidote.


“A data privacy vault,” he says, “is a way to control yourself as a person.”


Reputation.com is at the forefront of a nascent industry called “personal identity management.” The company’s business model for its vault service involves collecting data about consumers’ marketing preferences and giving them the option to share the information on a limited basis with certain companies in exchange for coupons, say, or status upgrades. In turn, participating companies will get access both to potential customers who welcome their pitches and to details about the exact products and services those people are seeking. In theory, the data vault would earn money as a kind of authorization supervisor, managing the permissions that marketers would need to access information about Reputation.com’s clients.


To some, the idea seems a bit quixotic.


Reputation.com, with $67 million in venture capital, is not making a profit. Although the company’s “privacy” products, like removing clients’ personal information from list broker and marketing databases, are popular, its reputation management techniques can be controversial. For instance, it offers services meant to make negative commentary about individual or corporate clients less visible on the Web.


And there are other hurdles, like competition. A few companies, like Personal, have already introduced vault services. Also, a number of other enterprises have tried — and quickly failed — to sell consumers on data lockers.


Even so, Mr. Fertik contends Reputation.com has the answer. The company already has several hundred thousand paying customers, he says, and patents on software that can identify consumers’ information online and score their reputations. He intends to show clients their scores and advise them on how to improve them.


“You can’t just build a vault and wish that vendors cared enough about your data to pay for it,” Mr. Fertik says. “You have to build a business that gives you the lift to accumulate a data set and attract consumers, the science to create insights that are valuable to vendors, and the power to impose restrictions on the companies who consume your data.”


THE consumer data trade is large and largely unregulated.


Companies and organizations in the United States spend more than $2 billion a year on third-party data about individuals, according to a report last year on personal identity management from Forrester Research, a market research firm. They spend billions more on credit data, market research and customer data analytics, the report said.


Read More..

Stalled Adoption Program in Guatemala Leaves Families in Limbo


Rodrigo Cruz for The New York Times


Amy and Rob Carr in Guatemala with Geovany Archilla Rodas, whom they have been trying to adopt since 2007. More Photos »







GUATEMALA CITY — The little boy flies like an airplane through the hotel, his arms outstretched. Then he leaps like a superhero, beaming as the red lights on his new sneakers flash and flicker, while the American couple he is with dissolve in laughter.




He calls them Mamá and Papi. They call him Hijo — Son. He corrects their fledgling Spanish. They teach him English. “Awe-some,” he repeats carefully, eyeing his new shoes.


To outsiders, they look like a family. But Geovany Archilla Rodas, an impish 6-year-old boy with spiky black hair, lives in an orphanage on the outskirts of this capital city. The Americans — Amy and Rob Carr of Reno, Nev. — live a world away. They are the only parents he has ever known.


They have been visiting him every year, usually twice a year, since he was a toddler, flying into this Central American city for a few days at a time to buy him clothes and to read him stories, to wipe his tears and to tickle him until he collapses in giggles at their hotel or in the orphanage.


Yet half a decade after agreeing to adopt him, the Carrs still have no idea when — or if — they will ever take Geovany home.


“There’s this hope in you that doesn’t want to die,” said Mrs. Carr, who arrived here last month with her husband, more determined than ever to cut through the bureaucracy. “In my heart, he’s my son.”


The Carrs are among the 4,000 Americans who found themselves stuck in limbo when Guatemala shut down its international adoption program in January 2008 amid mounting evidence of corruption and child trafficking. Officials here and in Washington promised at the time to process the remaining cases expeditiously.


But officials and prospective parents say that bureaucratic delays, lengthy investigations and casework hobbled by shortages of staff and resources have left hundreds of children stranded in institutions for years. Today, 150 children — including Geovany — are still waiting in orphanages and foster homes here while the Guatemalan authorities weigh whether to approve their adoptions to families in the United States.


Stalled adoptions are not unique to Guatemala. Concerns about fraud, including allegations of kidnappings and baby selling, have held up American adoptions for months, and sometimes years, from Ethiopia, Kyrgyzstan, Vietnam and Haiti. The State Department currently refuses to approve adoptions from Cambodia and Vietnam to pressure those countries to install safeguards so that children with biological relatives who can care for them are not shipped overseas, officials say.


But the problem of delayed adoptions is particularly acute in Guatemala, a country of about 14 million people, which in 2007 ranked second only to China in the number of children sent to the United States.


As officials here have spent months, and then years, trying to distinguish legitimate adoptions from fraudulent ones, many hopeful couples who had painted nurseries, hosted baby showers and bought brand new cribs began to despair as the infants they had hoped to adopt took their first steps and spoke their first words without them.


Faced with a seemingly endless process, scores of prospective parents quietly abandoned their efforts to adopt the children they once considered their own, officials say.


Guatemalan officials said they never intended for the children to remain institutionalized for so long. They say they have had to thoroughly investigate the cases, some of which are complicated by inconsistencies, false documents and questionable stories, to ensure that the children were not bought or stolen from impoverished rural women.


“These are very vulnerable people, who can be easily taken advantage of,” said Elizabeth Orrego de Llerena, president of the board of directors of the National Adoption Council, which is processing the adoption cases once they have been cleared by the child welfare investigative branch. “At times, they have not had the opportunity to make a complaint or to seek solutions.”


Ms. Orrego de Llerena said that the investigations, which typically include searches for biological relatives, were necessary to ensure that children were given up voluntarily.


Read More..

DealBook: Private Equity Firm to Buy Stake in Aston Martin

LONDON – Aston Martin, the maker of luxury cars made famous by James Bond movies, said on Friday that it had secured crucial financing by selling a stake to a Milan-based investment firm.

The private equity firm Investindustrial agreed to pay £150 million, or $241 million, for a 37.5 percent stake in Aston Martin, which is privately held.

Investindustrial has experience in investing in the motor industry after it sold Ducati, the Italian motorcycle maker, to Volkswagen’s Audi for more than $1 billion earlier this year.

The investment firm beat Mahindra & Mahindra, an Indian automaker, in a competition for the stake. The rest of Aston Martin continues to be owned by a Kuwaiti company, Investment Dar, and a group of individual investors.

The cash injection is critical for the iconic car brand, whose financial struggles have forced it to defer investing in new technology and models just as competition in the luxury market heated up. Aston Martin said Friday that it planned to invest more than £500 million to upgrade its production and technology.

Andrea C. Bonomi, senior principal at Investindustrial, said in a statement that at Aston Martin the investment firm plans “a similar transformation and rejuvenation that we achieved with Ducati, by expanding the model range and strengthening the dealership network, throughout the world.”

Investindustrial has about €3.1 billion, or $4 billion, of assets under management, including investments in an Italian retail company, a perfume company and a firm offering hair loss remedies. The investment firm was founded in 1990 by the Bonomi family, one of Italy’s well-known dynasties that amassed their wealth in the construction and industrial sectors. Investindustrial employs more than 50 people and is mainly investing in companies in Southern Europe.

Aston Martin, which was founded in 1913, is the only major luxury car maker that remains independent from the world’s largest car companies. Ford Motor sold the company to Investment Dar in 2007. A decline in consumer demand because of the economic crisis and a lack of funds to keep up with brands like Fiat’s Ferrari had hurt earnings at the firm, which produces all its models at a single plant in Britain..

Despite the difficulties, Aston Martin cars continue to be a fixture in James Bond movies, including the latest film “Skyfall.” The character of James Bond started to drive Aston Martins in the 1964 film “Goldfinger,” the third movie in the series.

Read More..

DealBook: S.E.C. Weighs Suit Against Netflix

Reed Hastings, the chief executive of Netflix, congratulated his team for a job well done in early July. On his public Facebook page, he crowed about the one billion hours of video that subscribers watched the previous month. The message was just 43 words.

Now, Netflix and its chief may be in deep trouble for that brief post.

On Thursday, Netflix disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission was considering taking action against the company and Mr. Hastings for its Facebook communication. The agency, in a so-called Wells notice, warned that it may file civil claims or seek a cease-and-desist order.

The S.E.C. is concerned that the post violated the Regulation Fair Disclosure rule, commonly known as Reg FD, which requires a company to announce information that is material to its business to all investors at the same time.

A Wells notice signaled that investigators planned to recommend charges against a company or executive. But recipients have a chance to object, and in some instances, the agency will close the case without taking action.

The move by the S.E.C. comes at a difficult time for Netflix, which has been trying to regain its footing after a series of setbacks. The company’s plan to cleave its movie-rental service into online streaming and mail delivery of DVDs led to a subscriber revolt last year. In October, the activist investor Carl C. Icahn took a 10 percent stake in the company, though he hasn’t outlined his plans.

Shares in Netflix were down 1.3 percent in after-hours trading on Thursday, at $85.02.

“We remain optimistic this can be cleared up quickly through the S.E.C.’s review process,” Mr. Hastings wrote on Facebook, a post that was filed with regulators.
A spokesman for Netflix declined to comment beyond Mr. Hastings’s post. A spokesman for the S.E.C. declined to comment.

On July 3, Mr. Hastings dashed out a quick Facebook post to his more than 200,000 followers. In it, he gave kudos to Netflix’s chief content officer, Ted Sarandos, about hitting a major milestone.

“When House of Cards and Arrested Development debut, we’ll blow these records away,” Mr. Hastings wrote, referring to the two television programs. “Keep going, Ted, we need even more!” Mr. Hastings seemed to mention the viewership statistics only in passing.

In the usual social media fashion, the post was forwarded by his followers. Bloggers picked up on it. Media reports cited it.

Regulation Fair Disclosure is intended to prevent the selective release of important information to some investors, depriving others of knowledge that would affect a company’s stock. A pharmaceutical company, for instance, can’t restrict news about a government investigation into one of its drugs to only a handful of shareholders.

Since the S.E.C. adopted the rule 12 years ago, companies have generally made announcements through news releases or regulatory filings. But the interpretation of that rule may be changing in an age of blogs, Facebook and Twitter.

Technology companies, in particular, tend to eschew news releases for all but the biggest announcements, instead sharing information on any number of Web outlets. The rule already allows for some exceptions, including information that is disclosed via news articles.

Mr. Hastings’s main defense is likely to be that the age of social media has redefined the concept of public disclosure. His Facebook feed is public, and the information was disseminated by his followers and the media.

It’s also possible that Netflix did not view the information as material. Mr. Hastings noted that on June 4, a Netflix vice president wrote on the corporate blog that subscribers “are enjoying nearly a billion hours per month of movies and TV shows” from the service. While Netflix’s stock rose on July 3, it was already getting a boost from a positive analyst note published the night before, Mr. Hastings wrote in Thursday’s post.

“We use blogging and social media, including Facebook, to communicate effectively with the public and our members,” Mr. Hastings wrote on Thursday.

A version of this article appeared in print on 12/07/2012, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: S.E.C. Warns Netflix Over a Post on Facebook.
Read More..

DealBook: Daimler Sells Half Its Stake in EADS for $2.2 Billion

LONDON – The German carmaker Daimler sold half of its stake in the aerospace giant European Aeronautic Defense and Space on Thursday in deal worth 1.7 billion euros ($2.2 billion).

The move is part of an overhaul of the ownership structure of EADS, the parent company of Airbus, which failed to complete a multibillion-dollar merger with the British aerospace company BAE Systems in October. The deal was aborted because of political divisions involving Britain, France and Germany.

Daimler said on Thursday that it had sold half of its 15 percent holding in EADS to a number of investors, including the German state-owned bank KfW. The automaker added that it had sold the stake at 27.23 euros a share, the closing price of EADS on Wednesday.

Shares in EADS rose 7.6 percent, to 29.25 euros, in morning trading in Paris on Thursday.

The share sale is an effort by the French and German governments to realign their stakes in the company, dissolving a decade-old arrangement that gave Paris and Berlin an effective veto over strategic management decisions at EADS.

Lagardère, a French conglomerate that currently owns a 7.5 percent stake in EADS, also plans to reduce its holding in the company through a share buyout program.

The ownership structure will eventually result in KfW acquiring a combined 12 percent stake in EADS, while France is expected to reduce its voting rights to 12 percent from 15 percent. A Spanish government holding company will also reduce its holding to 4 percent from about 5.5 percent.

Read More..

Well: Holding on for the Wedding

As my patient looked on, his wife took the framed photograph out of a nondescript manila mailer, the type with bubble wrap on the inside, and handed it to me gingerly. It was clear they both considered it to be precious cargo.

“You can see I made it to the wedding,” he said, smiling broadly, as I studied the image of him in a suit, locking arms with his granddaughter, the bride. The two of them were bordered by the opened doors of the church, stained glass windows on either side, his face bearing that familiar look of consuming love, joy and pride — along with a little fear, that at any moment he might start sobbing in front of all of his buddies and co-workers attending the ceremony. I have the same photograph in my own wedding album, of my father-in-law with my wife-to-be.

“You should have heard the gasp from everyone in the church when he came through those doors with our granddaughter,” his wife exclaimed. “I mean, no one thought he would even be there!”

“My granddaughter and I had been planning it for months, but we didn’t tell anyone,” my patient went on, explaining that he and his wife had raised the girl for several years while their daughter, who had gotten pregnant in her teens, could get back on her feet.

When it came to his health, my patient is the type of guy about whom you might say if he didn’t have bad luck, he wouldn’t have any luck at all. Years earlier, he was treated for colon cancer. Now, possibly as a result of that treatment, he had leukemia. But he also had a completely different type of bone cancer, and the kicker — advanced lung cancer.

He wasn’t the first patient I had ever treated with multiple cancers, and in general we approach people like him by going in order of treating the most serious cancers first, and working our way down to the less serious ones. In one respect, he was lucky: he looked a heck of a lot better than his medical chart. As leukemia and lung cancer often represent the worst of the worst, we tried treating both at the same time. The leukemia went into remission. The lung cancer didn’t.

Within oncology, it is taken as almost a truism that people die only after they have said their goodbyes to their immediate family, or achieved some life milestone. Countless times I have seen comatose patients linger until a child flies in from California, only to pass hours after that child’s arrival.

A study that appeared in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 2004 looked at whether people die soon after a milestone. In it, the authors analyzed death certificates from more than 300,000 people dying with cancer in Ohio from 1989 to 2000, and whether those people were more likely to die immediately after a birthday, Christmas or Thanksgiving. It turns out that these people were no more likely to die after these events than before, and the authors concluded that cancer patients are not able to postpone their deaths to survive such significant occasions.

The study was misguided, though: the authors asked the wrong question. The last time I looked forward to a birthday was half a lifetime ago when, for the first time, I could walk proudly into a bar without having to proffer my grungy fake I.D. And while I enjoy holidays, what motivates me to brave the traffic on I-80 with a car full of children and a DVD player on the fritz is not my enduring respect for pilgrims; it is the chance to be with the family I see far too infrequently.

“The weekend before the wedding was a close call,” my patient said. “I couldn’t move my leg or my arm, and that CT scan showed the lung cancer in my brain….” he trailed off.

“But that pill you prescribed really did the trick,” his wife picked up. “He could walk again after a few days.”

“Even if it hadn’t, if I’d had to tape my arm to my body and walk with a splint, I wouldn’t have missed it,” my patient said with a fierce look in his eyes.

I wanted to hang on to the photo, it represented such determination, but reluctantly handed it back. I said my goodbyes to them in clinic, then headed to the workroom, where one of the leukemia nurses approached me.

“When do you want to see him again — in four weeks or in five?” the nurse asked. I had the hardest time answering, and she gave me a knowing smile, understanding why I was hesitating.

“I don’t think it makes a difference, now that his granddaughter is married,” I answered.

He did come to clinic, just one more time. He was wearing a sweatshirt with the wedding photo silkscreened on the front, and underneath the caption, “Mission Accomplished.”

Read More..

Well: Holding on for the Wedding

As my patient looked on, his wife took the framed photograph out of a nondescript manila mailer, the type with bubble wrap on the inside, and handed it to me gingerly. It was clear they both considered it to be precious cargo.

“You can see I made it to the wedding,” he said, smiling broadly, as I studied the image of him in a suit, locking arms with his granddaughter, the bride. The two of them were bordered by the opened doors of the church, stained glass windows on either side, his face bearing that familiar look of consuming love, joy and pride — along with a little fear, that at any moment he might start sobbing in front of all of his buddies and co-workers attending the ceremony. I have the same photograph in my own wedding album, of my father-in-law with my wife-to-be.

“You should have heard the gasp from everyone in the church when he came through those doors with our granddaughter,” his wife exclaimed. “I mean, no one thought he would even be there!”

“My granddaughter and I had been planning it for months, but we didn’t tell anyone,” my patient went on, explaining that he and his wife had raised the girl for several years while their daughter, who had gotten pregnant in her teens, could get back on her feet.

When it came to his health, my patient is the type of guy about whom you might say if he didn’t have bad luck, he wouldn’t have any luck at all. Years earlier, he was treated for colon cancer. Now, possibly as a result of that treatment, he had leukemia. But he also had a completely different type of bone cancer, and the kicker — advanced lung cancer.

He wasn’t the first patient I had ever treated with multiple cancers, and in general we approach people like him by going in order of treating the most serious cancers first, and working our way down to the less serious ones. In one respect, he was lucky: he looked a heck of a lot better than his medical chart. As leukemia and lung cancer often represent the worst of the worst, we tried treating both at the same time. The leukemia went into remission. The lung cancer didn’t.

Within oncology, it is taken as almost a truism that people die only after they have said their goodbyes to their immediate family, or achieved some life milestone. Countless times I have seen comatose patients linger until a child flies in from California, only to pass hours after that child’s arrival.

A study that appeared in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 2004 looked at whether people die soon after a milestone. In it, the authors analyzed death certificates from more than 300,000 people dying with cancer in Ohio from 1989 to 2000, and whether those people were more likely to die immediately after a birthday, Christmas or Thanksgiving. It turns out that these people were no more likely to die after these events than before, and the authors concluded that cancer patients are not able to postpone their deaths to survive such significant occasions.

The study was misguided, though: the authors asked the wrong question. The last time I looked forward to a birthday was half a lifetime ago when, for the first time, I could walk proudly into a bar without having to proffer my grungy fake I.D. And while I enjoy holidays, what motivates me to brave the traffic on I-80 with a car full of children and a DVD player on the fritz is not my enduring respect for pilgrims; it is the chance to be with the family I see far too infrequently.

“The weekend before the wedding was a close call,” my patient said. “I couldn’t move my leg or my arm, and that CT scan showed the lung cancer in my brain….” he trailed off.

“But that pill you prescribed really did the trick,” his wife picked up. “He could walk again after a few days.”

“Even if it hadn’t, if I’d had to tape my arm to my body and walk with a splint, I wouldn’t have missed it,” my patient said with a fierce look in his eyes.

I wanted to hang on to the photo, it represented such determination, but reluctantly handed it back. I said my goodbyes to them in clinic, then headed to the workroom, where one of the leukemia nurses approached me.

“When do you want to see him again — in four weeks or in five?” the nurse asked. I had the hardest time answering, and she gave me a knowing smile, understanding why I was hesitating.

“I don’t think it makes a difference, now that his granddaughter is married,” I answered.

He did come to clinic, just one more time. He was wearing a sweatshirt with the wedding photo silkscreened on the front, and underneath the caption, “Mission Accomplished.”

Read More..

Apple to Resume U.S. Manufacturing





For the first time in years, Apple will manufacture computers in the United States, the chief executive of Apple, Timothy D. Cook, said in interviews with NBC and Bloomberg Businessweek.




“Next year, we will do one of our existing Mac lines in the United States,” he said in an interview to be broadcast Thursday on “Rock Center With Brian Williams” on NBC.


Apple, the biggest company in the world by market value, moved its manufacturing to Asia in the late 1990s. As an icon of American technology success and innovation, the California-based company has been criticized in recent years for outsourcing jobs abroad.


“I don’t think we have a responsibility to create a certain kind of job,” Mr. Cook said in the Businessweek interview. “But I think we do have a responsibility to create jobs.”


The company plans to spend $100 million on the American manufacturing in 2013, according to the interviews, a small fraction of its overall factory investments and an even tinier portion of its available cash.


In the interviews, Mr. Cook suggested the company would work with partners and that the manufacturing would be more than just the final assembly of parts. He noted that parts of the company’s ubiquitous iPhone, including the “engine” and the glass screen, were already made in America. The processor is manufactured by Samsung in Texas, while Corning makes the glass screen in Kentucky.


Over the last few years, sales of the iPhone, iPod and iPad have overwhelmed Apple’s line of Macinotsh computers, the basis of the company’s early business. Revenue from the iPhone alone made up 48 percent of the company’s total revenue for its fiscal fourth quarter ended Sept. 30.


But as recently as October, Apple introduced a new, thinner iMac, the product that pioneered the technique of building the computer innards inside the flat screen.


Mr. Cook did not say in the interviews where in the United States the new manufacturing would occur. But he did defend Apple’s track record in American hiring.


“When you back up and look at Apple’s effect on job creation in the United States, we estimate that we’ve created more than 600,000 jobs now,” Mr. Cook told Businessweek. Those jobs include positions at partners and suppliers.


Steve Dowling, a spokesman for Apple, declined on Thursday to provide additional details on Apple’s plans, referring to Mr. Cook’s interviews.


Apple has for years done the final assembly of some Macs in the United States, mainly systems that customers buy with custom configurations, like bigger hard drives and more memory than on standard machines.


Mr. Cook’s statements suggested Apple is planning to build more of the Mac’s ingredients here, although with partners. He told Businessweek that the plan “doesn’t mean that Apple will do it ourselves, but we’ll be working with people, and we’ll be investing our money.”


While Apple’s products are typically made in Asian factories owned by other companies, Apple itself often purchases the sophisticated manufacturing equipment required to make its cutting-edge designs, spending billions of dollars a year on such machines.


Foxconn Technology, which manufactures more than 40 percent of the world’s electronics, is one of Apple’s main overseas manufacturing contractors. Based in Taiwan, Foxconn is China’s largest private employer, with 1.2 million workers, and it has come under intense scrutiny over working conditions inside its factories.


In March, Foxconn pledged to sharply curtail the number of working hours and significantly increase wages. The announcement was a response to a far-ranging inspection by the Fair Labor Association, a monitoring group that found widespread problems — including numerous instances where Foxconn violated Chinese law and industry codes of conduct.


Apple, which recently joined the labor association, had asked the group to investigate plants manufacturing iPhones, iPads and other devices. A growing outcry over conditions at overseas factories prompted protests and petitions, and several labor rights organizations started scrutinizing Apple’s suppliers.


Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold in 2011 were manufactured overseas. Apple employs 43,000 people in the United States and 20,000 overseas. An additional 700,000 people engineer, build and assemble iPads, iPhones and Apple’s other products, mostly abroad.


At a meeting with Silicon Valley executives in 2011, President Obama asked Steven P. Jobs, then the Apple chief executive, what it would take to make iPhones in the United States. Mr. Jobs, who died later that year, told the president, “Those jobs aren’t coming back.”


Nick Wingfield contributed reporting.


Read More..

Egyptian Forces Deploy Tanks as President Mohamed Morsi’s Backers Clash With Rivals


Tara Todras-Whitehill for The New York Times


Egyptian soldiers put up barbed wired fences near the presidential palace on Thursday in Cairo. More Photos »







CAIRO — An elite Egyptian unit deployed tanks outside the presidential palace on Thursday after a night of battles between Islamists and secular protesters that left five people dead and 450 wounded, spreading chaos in one of Cairo’s wealthiest suburbs and leaving streets littered with debris and burned-out cars.




Angry mobs of Islamists battled the secular protesters with fists, rocks and firebombs in the first major outbreak of violence between political factions here since the revolt against the ousted President Hosni Mubarak began nearly two years ago.


With at least 12 tanks drawn up near the palace, troops from the presidential guard hammered stakes into the ground to string barbed wire to separate Islamists camping outside the palace and secular protesters chanting slogans urging the guardsmen to choose “between the revolutionaries and the killers.” Other armored units were sent to guard the headquarters of state television, an important symbol of government power. The severity of the clashes — and their potential political impact — became apparent when three senior advisers to Mr. Mubarak’s successor, Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s first freely elected president, resigned during the clashes Wednesday, blaming him for the bloodshed. Mr. Morsi’s prime minister implored both sides to pull back in order to make room for “dialogue.”


Graffiti on the walls of the presidential compound, mocking President Morsi, had been covered by Thursday morning with patches of white paint.


The scale of the fighting, in the affluent Heliopolis neighborhood just outside Mr. Morsi’s office in the presidential palace, raised the first doubts about Mr. Morsi’s effort to hold a referendum on Dec. 15 on a draft constitution approved by his Islamist allies over the objections of his secular opposition and the Coptic Christian Church.


Hundreds of Islamist supporters of Mr. Morsi spent the night outside the palace, and on Thursday some awoke with head bandages covering their wounds. Many said they were members of the Muslim Brotherhood from other provinces and they vowed to stay in Cairo until the draft constitution was approved.


They said they had come to defend Egypt’s democracy from a conspiracy by foreign powers, corrupt businessmen and cynical opposition leaders, insisting that their secular opponents were fighting for money, and not for sincere beliefs.


In a token of the deep suspicions since Egypt’s revolution, some maintained that Mr. Morsi could not rely on the police force to defend him and his palace because its leaders were holdovers from the old government trying to position themselves to be on the winning side of the political battle.


“We must take our freedom; it will not be given to us on a golden platter,” said Mohamed Hassan Awad Rashid, 54, a schoolteacher and member of the Muslim Brotherhood from Sharqiya in the Nile Delta who said he had arrived Wednesday and would stay until the referendum. “If we don’t complete our revolution now, then we are digging our own graves.”


In the early afternoon, the hundreds of Islamists supporting Mr. Morsi abruptly abandoned their encampment outside the presidential palace, possibly signaling a tactical shift by the president, who said through state media that he would address the nation later on Thursday.


State media also reported that in midafternoon, the presidential guard, which reports directly to the president, would clear the streets around the palace. Overnight, periodic gunshots could be heard at the front lines of the fight, and secular protesters displayed birdshot wounds and pellets. But it could not be determined whether the riot police or Islamists or the opposition had fired the guns.


Many in both camps brandished makeshift clubs, and on the secular side a few carried knives. Thousands joined the battle on each side. The riot police initially tried to fight off or break up the crowds with tear gas, but by midevening on Wednesday, the security forces had all but withdrawn. They continued to try to separate the two sides across one boulevard but stayed out of the battle that raged on all around.


In a city square on the Islamist side of the battle lines, a loudspeaker on the top of a moving car blared out exhortations that the fight was about more than politics or Mr. Morsi.


“This is not a fight for an individual, this is not a fight for President Morsi,” the speaker declared. “We are fighting for God’s law, against the secularists and liberals.”


Protesters reportedly set fire to Muslim Brotherhood political offices in the cities of Suez and Ismailia.


Mai Ayyad contributed reporting.



Read More..

To Fight Climate Change, College Students Take Aim at the Endowment Portfolio





SWARTHMORE, Pa. — A group of Swarthmore College students is asking the school administration to take a seemingly simple step to combat pollution and climate change: sell off the endowment’s holdings in large fossil fuel companies. For months, they have been getting a simple answer: no.




As they consider how to ratchet up their campaign, the students suddenly find themselves at the vanguard of a national movement.


In recent weeks, college students on dozens of campuses have demanded that university endowment funds rid themselves of coal, oil and gas stocks. The students see it as a tactic that could force climate change, barely discussed in the presidential campaign, back onto the national political agenda.


“We’ve reached this point of intense urgency that we need to act on climate change now, but the situation is bleaker than it’s ever been from a political perspective,” said William Lawrence, a Swarthmore senior from East Lansing, Mich.


Students who have signed on see it as a conscious imitation of the successful effort in the 1980s to pressure colleges and other institutions to divest themselves of the stocks of companies doing business in South Africa under apartheid.


A small institution in Maine, Unity College, has already voted to get out of fossil fuels. Another, Hampshire College in Massachusetts, has adopted a broad investment policy that is ridding its portfolio of fossil fuel stocks.


“In the near future, the political tide will turn and the public will demand action on climate change,” Stephen Mulkey, the Unity College president, wrote in a letter to other college administrators. “Our students are already demanding action, and we must not ignore them.”


But at colleges with large endowments, many administrators are viewing the demand skeptically, saying it would undermine their goal of maximum returns in support of education. Fossil fuel companies represent a significant portion of the stock market, comprising nearly 10 percent of the value of the Russell 3000, a broad index of 3,000 American companies.


No school with an endowment exceeding $1 billion has agreed to divest itself of fossil fuel stocks. At Harvard, which holds the largest endowment in the country at $31 billion, the student body recently voted to ask the school to do so. With roughly half the undergraduates voting, 72 percent of them supported the demand.


“We always appreciate hearing from students about their viewpoints, but Harvard is not considering divesting from companies related to fossil fuels,” Kevin Galvin, a university spokesman, said by e-mail.


Several organizations have been working on some version of a divestment campaign, initially focusing on coal, for more than a year. But the recent escalation has largely been the handiwork of a grass-roots organization, 350.org, that focuses on climate change, and its leader, Bill McKibben, a writer turned advocate. The group’s name is a reference to what some scientists see as a maximum safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 350 parts per million. The level is now about 390, an increase of 41 percent since before the Industrial Revolution.


Mr. McKibben is touring the country by bus, speaking at sold-out halls and urging students to begin local divestment initiatives focusing on 200 energy companies. Many of the students attending said they were inspired to do so by an article he wrote over the summer in Rolling Stone magazine, “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math.”


Speaking recently to an audience at the University of Vermont, Mr. McKibben painted the fossil fuel industry as an enemy that must be defeated, arguing that it had used money and political influence to block climate action in Washington. “This is no different than the tobacco industry — for years, they lied about the dangers of their industry,” Mr. McKibben said.


Eric Wohlschlegel, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, said that continued use of fossil fuels was essential for the country’s economy, but that energy companies were investing heavily in ways to emit less carbon dioxide.


In an interview, Mr. McKibben said he recognized that a rapid transition away from fossil fuels would be exceedingly difficult. But he said strong government policies to limit emissions were long overdue, and were being blocked in part by the political power of the incumbent industry.


Mr. McKibben’s goal is to make owning the stocks of these companies disreputable, in the way that owning tobacco stocks has become disreputable in many quarters. Many colleges will not buy them, for instance.


Mr. McKibben has laid out a series of demands that would get the fuel companies off 350.org’s blacklist. He wants them to stop exploring for new fossil fuels, given that they have already booked reserves about five times as large as scientists say society can afford to burn. He wants them to stop lobbying against emission policies in Washington. And he wants them to help devise a transition plan that will leave most of their reserves in the ground while encouraging lower-carbon energy sources.


“They need more incentive to make the transition that they must know they need to make, from fossil fuel companies to energy companies,” Mr. McKibben said.


Most college administrations, at the urging of their students, have been taking global warming seriously for years, spending money on steps like cutting energy consumption and installing solar panels.


The divestment demand is so new that most administrators are just beginning to grapple with it. Several of them, in interviews, said that even though they tended to agree with students on the seriousness of the problem, they feared divisive boardroom debates on divestment.


That was certainly the case in the 1980s, when the South African divestment campaign caused bitter arguments across the nation.


Brent Summers contributed reporting from Burlington, Vt.



Read More..