In October, Wired News reporter Kevin Poulsen ran a simple experiment that produced some disturbing results. He wrote a computer program that matched databases of registered sex offenders with MySpace profiles and found hundreds of matches.

On Poulsen's list: A thrice-convicted sex offender who had recently finished a nine-year jail term for sexually abusing two young boys. It turned out he was using MySpace to approach and proposition young boys. The offender was soon arrested again.

Two months after Poulsen's story was published, MySpace announced it had hired an outside company, Sentinel Tech Holding Corp., to compare registered sex offenders rolls with MySpace profiles and root out sex criminals from the site. Until earlier this month, though, it appeared little progress had been made.

Then, a public spat erupted between a group of state attorneys general and MySpace, with the AGs demanding to know how many offenders the review had uncovered. After about a week of public jousting, MySpace said it had removed 7,000 profiles that might have belonged to registered sex offenders.

The controversy has raised questions about MySpace's diligence in trying to keep predators off its service and its ability to work with some law enforcement officials.

That so many registered offenders were attracted to MySpace, largely a haunt for young Web users, is disturbing to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

"It is a very, very frightening number when you consider they ... are using their real names," he said. "One would think a convicted sex offender would use an alias. This number is just the most visible tip of the predatory problem on MySpace and other social networking sites."

Why did this rather public controversy over sex offender MySpace pages erupt this month? Curiously, it began when MySpace – often criticized for inaction on child safety issues – took a strong action against registered sex offenders.

Sentinel starts

The initial spark flew on May 2, when MySpace unceremoniously turned on the product developed by Sentinel and began removing profiles from the site.

Within days, the group of attorney general offices already eyeing MySpace policies found out about the deletions and became concerned that evidence of crimes might be destroyed.

"We were rather concerned that we were hearing back channel information about profiles being removed and deleted without us receiving that information," said Nils Frederiksen, a spokesman for Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett. "We need to know which Pennsylvania residents have been identified because of possible terms and conditions of their release that may have been violated."

Some probation agreements prevent sex offenders from using computers at all; others prevent them from any contact with minors. The offenders' MySpace profiles may have included clear evidence that such provisions were being violated, Frederiksen said.

"Along the way we were hearing that this was a work in progress, that it wasn't ready," he said. "Then in the spring we found out they'd already deleted profiles. That was what motivated the public call to action."

On May 15, eight attorneys general sent a letter to MySpace demanding more information about registered offenders on the site. The next day, MySpace refused to provide the data, saying it could only do so if compelled by a court order. Several states began seeking court orders to obtain the data, but five days later MySpace announced that an agreement had been reached to share the information.

A misunderstanding

To MySpace officials, it was all a misunderstanding. The new system was still being tested when the suspect profiles began being removed, so the company believed there was no need, at that point, to notify attorneys general who were already working with the company, said one MySpace official, who agreed to discuss the matter on condition he not be identified.

And the profile removal process was designed to preserve any evidence law enforcement might subsequently need, the company said.

"In addition to immediately removing registered sex offenders from MySpace, our plans have always been to provide the information collected by Sentinel … to law enforcement, including the attorneys general," Mike Angus, executive vice president and general counsel for Fox Interactive Media, which owns MySpace, said in a statement.

But the spat likely signals more than concern about deletion of evidence. There is obvious sentiment among law enforcement agencies that MySpace was acting too slowly to remove known sex offenders from the site.

"We were disappointed it's taken a year to get to this point," Frederiksen said. His office had approached MySpace about the sex offender issue even before the Wired story was published. "We would like to see things move forward in a faster pace."

No national sex offender registry

But company officials say government sex offender registries are to blame for the hold-up.

Because most registries are maintained by state offices and there is no national database, Sentinel had to build a tool that collected information on 600,000 offenders from more than 50 sources, the company said. Because the data couldn't be downloaded from registry Web sites, collecting the data was a complicated project. Building the tool took about 6 months, the official said.

Still, some officials in the various attorney general offices suggested MySpace had another motivation for moving slowly and deleting profiles without informing public officials: quietly removing the offender profiles without drawing attention to the number of convicted sex criminals who lurk on the site.

"In fairness to MySpace, it did take the step of hiring Sentinel … but they are ambivalent about releasing the results," Blumenthal said. "Perhaps they feel it may reflect badly on this site and other sites."

In his October story, Poulsen concluded that matching sex offender registries to MySpace profiles was hardly the most effective tool for improving the site's safety. After all, would-be predators could easily foil such filters by registering with fake names and other information. Blumenthal and other attorneys general are pushing for additional measures, such as mandatory age verification to keep kids off the site altogether.

But the presence of 7,000 registered offenders on the site -- and the time span required to remove them -- raises inevitable questions about MySpace's ability to keep its neighborhood safe.

"The measures taken by MySpace have been baby steps when giant strides are needed," Blumenthal said.

{Clarification: An earier verion of this story said MySpace didn't notify law enforcement while it was testing the Sentinel product. The sentence has been edited to say that the attorneys general were not notified during testing.}

Ever wonder why your computer and your gadgets are driving you mad, and why calling the manufacturer or seller for help seems to make things worse? Perhaps it's because high-tech CEOs have an inflated sense of their customer support skills.

A new survey shows that 75 percent of high-tech titans say their companies provide "above average" customer care.

OK, I'll give you a moment to stop laughing. Apparently, these CEOs don't have to call the standard 1-800 number.

As you might expect, high-tech consumers don't share this perception. To be precise, nearly 6 in 10 respondents told researchers they were somewhat upset or extremely upset with the way their most recent customer service experience was handled, according to consulting firm Accenture.

"That's a rather stark disconnect," said Brian Sprague, who runs Accenture's customer service and support group.

High-tech trouble can be a big time suck for consumers. Another survey released earlier this year concluded that the average consumer wastes 12 hours every month on computer troubles.

And all this high-tech trouble can have unseen consequences. Since people don't believe companies stand behind their products, most (74 percent) turn to friends and family for help, according to a "Cyber Stress" study conducted by Support.com. But that imposition may be straining relationships more than you realize. One in two people surveyed said they'd rather help a friend move than help a friend with a computer problem.

"There is a really high level of frustration out there," said Jennifer Massaro, a spokeswoman for Support.com.

'It's not us'

The phenomenon of gadget madness isn't totally lost on high-tech CEOs, Sprague said. It's just that most executives believe the problems only impact other companies.

"They all think, 'It's not us,' Sprague said. "So we say, 'I understand you think you are great, but let's do a little survey.'" At most firms, the survey shows the same disconnect between what executives and their customers think about service.

The consequences can be severe. Consumers who feel they've been badly treated are incredibly disloyal, the Accenture survey found; 81 percent said they'd purchase from a competitor next time.

Even average treatment isn't good enough -- only 27 percent of those consumers say they'll buy again from the same company.

Budget conscious companies in the ultra-competitive consumer electronic industry are always looking to cut corners, and customer service always seems like a good target. Companies save on employee costs by forcing people to work their way through voice mail systems or by skimping on warrantees. But that's a penny-wise, pound-foolish strategy, Sprague said. The actual cost of providing good customer service -- having a human being answer the phone, for example -- only costs between $10 and $30 per customer. Acquiring new customers is much more expensive. Direct broadcast satellite system firms like DirecTV spend on average about $600 to acquire customers, he said.

Cost avoidance

Keeping current customers happy is not a new concept -– the problem of churn and customer retention has been studied in business schools for decades. An entire software industry has flourished -- customer relationship management software – to mine databases in search of at-risk customers. Yet so many companies persist in their shortsightedness.

Why? "A lot of high-tech companies are very product-centric, they're all about the latest features and functions," Sprague said. "But they've lost focus on (what happens) after the product is shipped. They have historically focused on cost avoidance. ... The entire customer service organization is an afterthought."

The good news for companies -- and consumers -- is that some firms are finally starting to understand the value of treating consumers well, Sprague said.

The benefits are immediate. Companies that improve their customer service experiences find consumers become immediately loyal -- they are 2.5 times more likely to buy again from the same company. In fact, consumers who have a problem and enjoy a positive customer service experience are actually more loyal than customers who buy a product and never have to call the firm looking for help.

"The benefits of treating people well are pretty dramatic," Sprague said. And so are the costs of treating people poorly.

RED TAPE WRESTLING TIPS

Be a VIP: Fair or not, VIP treatment is real. Many companies think 80 percent of their revenue comes from 20 percent of their customers. "Retention" efforts, such as late fee waivers or special tech support lines, are often focused only on the top 20 percent. When calling for help, tell a representative why you are a valuable customer -- "I've purchased 12 Dell computers in the past 5 years," for example. You'll often get better treatment.

Be less price-centric: You can be penny wise and pound foolish, too. Patronize companies that treat you well, even if their products cost a few bucks extra. When you inevitably have a problem, you'll be glad you did.

Get a human: You can skip past the annoying electronic voice prompts by using secret codes provided by GetHuman.com. While you're at it, patronize companies like LL Bean and Hertz, which pay enough employees to answer the phone.

VIDEO: Click here or on the image to watch Symantec researcher Eric Chien demonstrate how malware spreads on the Internet.

Don't click on attachments? Good. Always keep that firewall turned on? Even better. Stay away from the Internet's unsavory neighborhoods? Better still. Think you are protected?

Wrong.

Computer criminals are evolving their tactics to subdue your computer, experts say. Each time you invest more money and time in staying safe, the bad guys just find another way around your defenses. Their newest method may be the trickiest yet: Web pages booby-trapped with infectious computer code.

Such sites are popping up at an alarming rate, according to a new study issued by Google called "Ghost in the Browser." (Adobe Acrobat required).

Unsuspecting Net users are victimized by simply doing what they do hundreds of times each day – visiting a Web page. Then, while the consumer browses content normally, a computer virus or Trojan horse program is silently installed.

In the study, Google found 300,000 Web sites laced with such malicious code, and another 700,000 suspicious sites. For perspective, the study found only 18,000 Web sites laced with adware.

So called drive-by downloads are not new, but criminals have seized on the tactic lately because their success rate with traditional e-mail viruses has tapered off thanks to improved software and consumer education. Avoiding e-mail viruses is fairly easy, as long as consumers following clear rules like "don't click on any attachments." But drive-by downloads are much more sinister, as no user interaction is required beyond opening an infected site in a Web browser.

Web 2.0 -- more risks

Dave Cole, a Symantec researcher, said even the tried-and-true advice to "stay out of the bad Web neighborhoods" doesn't work anymore. That's largely because of the rapid increase in user-contribution Web 2.0-style sites -- sites like this blog that allow comments and other content to be uploaded. Hackers can often trick such Web sites into hosting their virulent computer code by using these tools to upload viruses. That means it's possible for consumers to visit what was once a harmless site -- say a blog they've looked at every day for a year without any problems -- and still become infected.

"Today it is not unlikely that you'll end up on a dangerous Web page even if you stick to good areas of 'neighborhood,'" Cole said.

Once a consumer's computer is infected by a drive-by download, it's likely to become a zombie in an army of computers used by spammers to send out millions of unsolicited e-mails.

To see a demonstration of how spammers used hijacked computers to make money click on the video attached to this story.

The problem of hijacked computers – some believe as many as 100 million computers on the Net have been hijacked by hackers – is the subject of our recent three-part series, "Is Your Computer a Criminal."

The advent of drive-by downloads as the next important hacker tool puts search engines in the uncomfortable position of acting as a conduit between consumers and criminals. To counteract this threat, Google has quietly begun warning users whose searches turn up potentially malicious Web pages that "this site may harm your computer." The labeling began close to a year ago, said Google's Niels Provos, who co-authored the "Ghost in the Browser" report.

"The installation of software without user consent is something that can be detected easily," Provos said. The company ran billions of Web pages through a filter that looked for suspicious behavior. Of those, about 4.5 million pages tripped Google's alarm, about 1 million contained some suspicious computer code and 450,000 were positively identified as dangerous. These sites now come with Google warning labels, and users must go to some trouble to actually visit the sites.

The practice has generated some controversy online, with a few writers criticizing Google for "policing" the Net and potentially censoring content. But Provos said the company has an appeals process for site owners who feel they have been improperly labeled as malicious, and that the firm is doing the right thing to keep users safe.

"We are taking the security of our users very seriously," Provos said. "No matter where the content comes from."

RED TAPE WRESTLING TIPS Drive-by downloads are treacherous, but there are ways to minimize the likelihood that your computer will get hit. Provos suggests that computer users should:

• Use antivirus software and firewalls, along with services that automatically patch software like Windows. They won't keep you from visiting infectious Web sites, but they can stop the virus or Trojan horse from wreaking havoc on your computer.

• Visit only Web sites you trust. You can still become infected, but your odds of staying safe are better.

• Take the added precaution of running the Web browser in a "virtual machine," which isolates the browser software from the rest of the computer. Even if consumers visit a malicious site with a browser running in a virtual machine, the infection will not spread to the rest of the PC. Microsoft offers virtual PC software for both Macintosh and Windows, but only the Windows version is free. (An earlier version of this entry wrongly indicated that the Mac version was also free)

"I have being paid $50,000.00 in advance to terminate you"

Steve Thomas opened his e-mail recently and read a message which included that ominous sentence, followed by this one: "I have followed you closely for one week and three days."

But Thomas, a 48-year-old Little Rock, Ark., resident, isn't in any danger -- unless you think an assault of improper English or an overflowing junk mail folder constitute danger.

"I never did take it seriously, but I thought about my mother," he said. "She's just gotten into doing e-mail and if she had gotten that it probably would have bothered her more. And of course in the back of your mind, there's always that little piece that says, 'What if it isn't a hoax?' "

Thomas was targeted by what is sometimes called a "hit man scam" or "killer spam." It's just an unwanted e-mail, like so many others, designed to trick consumers into giving cash to a criminal half-way around the world. Only in this case, recipients are told their life depends on their ability to transfer $50,000 to an overseas bank in the next few days.

The poor English -- not to mention the outrageous claims – should tip off most recipients that the mail isn't real. But this scam certainly sounds a bit more serious than offers for penile enlargement creams or a chance to split $5 million hidden by a former Nigerian prince.

E-mail extortion scams have been around since the dawn of e-mail. But the hit-man scam seems to have gained traction in recent months, perhaps as e-mail criminals see a need to raise the stakes to get attention.

The Internet Crime Complaint Center issued a warning about extortion e-mails earlier this year. And Jim DePriest, an assistant attorney general in Arkansas, said his office has received multiple hit-man complaints recently and the FBI has received about 100 complaints nationwide, he said. Not every victim was as tech savvy as Thomas.

"We've received a half dozen or more from consumers who were quite alarmed," DePriest said. There were enough complaints to prompt his office to send out a consumer alert about the e-mails last week.

"One scam takes spam to a new, frightening level," the notice says.

The scam also takes the crime to a new level, DePriest said. Criminals who send out threats of bodily harm would be likely be liable for prosecution on assault or terroristic threat charges, in addition to charges normally associated with spam and fraud.

Consumers who receive such e-mails should pay them no mind, said Greg Donewar, manager of the Internet Crime Complaint Center. He directed confused Net users to visit LooksTooGoodToBeTrue.com, the agency's Web site devoted to consumer education, for more information.

MORE ON MSNBC.COM

Killer's thwarted last-meal wish inspires charity

Engineer convicted of stealing U.S. military secrets

Scott's space ashes still lost on Earth

A bounced check is rarely just a single problem. Often, a cascade of events follows -- one bounced check leads to another and another, and then a series of non-sufficient funds fees, along with late fees from creditors.

Clawing out is often a one-step-forward, two-steps-back battle. The bank sucks money out through fees even as the consumer tries to put money in to cover the losses. But what if the bank isn't the only one sucking out money? What if, as a consumer dumps in money to raise the balance above zero, both the bank and an identity thief are taking money out?

This 21st century nightmare hit 27-year-old Rachel Poor in March, when she discovered that an identity thief had drained her checking account and even overdrawn it by several hundred dollars.

"Every day when I logged in to check my balance, there were the big red numbers that kept getting bigger," says Rachel Poor.

But that was just the beginning of her ordeal. For two full weeks after Poor reported the crime to her bank, her imposter continued to withdraw money from her account as fast as she added it. As a result, she was hit with 20 overdraft fees totaling $670, and nearly six weeks after the fact, she was still fighting to get all her money back.

"Basically, I feel like I was the victim of fraud twice, once by the (person) who was using my account and again by Bank of America," Poor said. "Every time my balance went positive for even a moment another fraud charge would pass through ... so you can imagine my frustration."

Bank of America spokeswoman Betty Reiss said the bank couldn't comment on an individual consumer's account, but didn't dispute any of the details Poor provided.

An ATM breaks the bad news

The trouble began on Saturday, March 10, when Poor went to a cash machine near Boston and tried to withdraw money for the weekend. She was denied, and the machine indicated her account was overdrawn by nearly $350. She knew something was wrong. She ran home, looked at her balance online and spotted the bad news immediately. An identity thief had gone on a $466 shopping spree using her checking account the night before.

Poor, a public relations professional, called the bank immediately to report the theft, knowing the speed was of the essence. She was out of cash and had a series of automatic bill payments pending. And she was worried about what the identity thief might do next with her money. Poor acted fast; her bank didn't.

A maddening event cascade followed. During the next six weeks, Poor faced repeated barrages of bounced check fees. She had to take out a small loan from her employer just to get spending money.

Like Sisyphus -- the doomed king from Greek mythology destined to endlessly and futilely try to roll a rock up a steep hill -- each time Poor deposited money into her account to bring it positive, the criminal was able to withdraw it, leaving her with no cash and facing yet another insufficient funds charge.

"I was to the point where I broke down in frustration, crying," she said. "I see why people freak out. Every day when I logged in to check my balance, there were the big red numbers that kept getting bigger. I spent every single lunch hour trying to get a hold of people. Each time I said, 'This makes no sense. Can't you just stop paying people?'"

More complicated than credit card theft

Banks constantly market their zero liability programs, which aim to convince consumers that they stand to lose nothing from most cases of identity theft. Financial companies often complain that media reports exaggerate the risks to consumers after reports of lost or stolen credit card databases.

But these reports rarely discuss the more challenging problems connected with the theft of debit card or checking account data theft. Getting a credit card company to waive fraudulent charges may be hassle-free for most people, but beating back electronic transfer fraud – usually carried out via cloned debit cars or counterfeit checks -- is another matter entirely.

Consumers facing such fraud find their checking accounts drained, and must wait for banks to refund the money. Legally, banks have 10 days to issue refunds. But victims like Poor, who face ongoing ID theft fights, can find the process takes much longer.

When Poor spoke to Bank of America on March 10, she was told she'd have to sign an affidavit before the missing $466 would be returned. She had to use the bank's blank form, which would be mailed to her, and would arrive in five days or so. "Can't we do something quicker?" she asked.

With her account emptied, she no access to cash. The bank offered to fax the affidavit form instead, but said it would have to be sent to a nearby bank branch, which wouldn't begin processing it until Monday. By then, two $20 overdraft charges had already been levied against her account.

'How do we know you're not making this up'

The next day, Poor was unable to stop a series of pending online payments, and she was hit with eight overdraft fees for $35 each. Her account was now $808 negative.

She called the bank again. "I asked, 'Can I get those reversed so I can have some money?" she said. "And the answer I got was, 'How do we know you're not making this up?' " She was again informed that she had to work through the affidavit process and her refunds would come 10 days after the bank received her paperwork.

The bank's skepticism about her claim was particularly irksome because Poor had been a Bank of America customer since she was 17. And she was no stranger to the complicated process of check clearing. Prior to her work in public relations, she worked as a bank teller.

Her former employer: Bank of America.

But even her prior experience wasn't helping her dig out of this nightmare. In fact, her timing continued to be off.

The next day, Poor's paycheck cleared and was deposited directly into her account. She had tried to intercept the payment, to keep the money out of her compromised account, but she was too late. Most of the paycheck was immediately absorbed by the bank to cover unpaid fees. She was left with about $500, but that would soon be gone. Her imposter was ready to go on another shopping trip.

On March 19, fully 10 days after Poor told the bank an imposter was using her account, the criminal spent $370 in two trips to Wal-Mart. The imposter also passed a check for $132. Poor's account was negative again. Four more $35 overdraft charges were assessed.

"As soon as I put money in, he was able to take it out," she said. "I kept asking why they couldn't just close the account." The answer: Accounts that have a negative balance can't be closed.

Reiss, the Bank of America spokeswoman, said it is not the bank's policy to tell consumers to leave their accounts open when identity theft occurs; instead, the bank works with consumers individually to develop the best course of action. Consumers are generally instructed to let the bank know about any pending transactions so they can be appropriately flagged and don't cause additional bank fees. Sometimes, consumers are instructed to open a new replacement account, and pending transactions are redirected to that account. She could not answer questions about why Poor's case wasn't handled that way because she said she couldn't reveal any information about an individual consumer.

Poor still needed money and was getting desperate. When she told her employer that her entire paycheck was essentially gobbled up by fees and the thief, her boss took pity on her and cut her a manual paycheck as a loan.

"Without that I wouldn't have been able to pay the rent," she said.

Credits and fees at the same time

By now, she had opened a new checking account with another bank, but she still was out nearly $2,000, and her checking account was an accounting morass. One side of the bank didn't seem to know what the other was doing. Some refunds arrived -- on March 20, she received $315; on March 21, the original $466 was refunded -- but that same day, her account was hit with another $140 in bounced check charges. The total to this point -- 18 overdraft-related fees for $580.

Then, another series of credits were issued. She asked why the bank wasn't locking her account somehow; she was told not to worry, that it would ultimately refund all the bounced check charges.

Finally, on March 26, she called the bank, received an up-to-the-moment balance, moved some money around, and reached a zero balance. She then tried to close the account only to be refused. The balance, she was told, wasn't zero after all.

In just those few minutes, the criminal had struck again. Fifteen days after the initial crime was reported, the imposter managed to spend $364 of Poor's money at Marshall's. The next day, Poor was hit with another $35 overdraft fee, and an additional $35 bounced check fee. The account was $434 negative.

On April 5 -- one month into the ordeal -- Poor was still out about $400. The final refund arrived April 20, six weeks after the identity theft bout began.

Fake checks not checked

Poor doesn't have any idea how her identity was stolen. All the fraudulent charges involved forged checks, most of which were processed electronically at the checkout line. One of the checks passed by the criminal was processed manually, however, and she has a copy of that check. The name on it is Joe Larry DeLacruz and the address is bogus. But the account number and bank routing number belong to Poor's account.

Poor's story highlights this sad fact: Retailers and banks don't check to see if the numbers on a check match the name that is associated with the account.

That astonished Poor. "With the technology we have ... you would think a computer would read the check and realize that routing number and checking account is attached to a different name," she said. "We're so advanced but then something this simple goes right through. It doesn't make any sense."

A little-known truth about old-fashioned checks: Anyone can take the account number and routing number off the bottom of a check and create new, bogus checks with them. The name and account number don't even have to match.

But that doesn't explain why a criminal was able to steal money from Poor's account more than two weeks after she reported it as suspicious.

"It's absolutely ridiculous how I was treated with such disregard by customer service and the lack of urgency the bank had for resolving this issue," she said.

Are you "Connected but Hassled?"  How about "Light but Satisfied" An "Inexperienced Experimenter?"  Or maybe you just can't get enough, and you're an "Omnivore."

Technology analysts often break consumers into simple categories like this: Early adopters (geeks); followers (most of us); and Luddites (still without cell phones).  But to some researchers, those descriptions always seemed too general. Plenty of Red Tape readers, for example, have loads of technology in their lives but find it often does more harm than good.  So a little more than a year ago, the Pew Internet & American Life Project set out to come up with more descriptive categories to represent the full spectrum of tech consumers. 

"To do this, we asked people what you have, what you do with it, and what you think about it," said John Horrigan, who authored the study.

The survey results indicate there's no straight-line continuum between heavy users and Luddites. Instead, there are plenty of nuances in the way people use the Internet, computers, digital cameras, and cell phones to enhance their productivity and stay connected with friends.  In the end, Pew settled on 10 character types – a typology – to describe the ways consumers use technology.

The big surprise:  Not all geeks love technology, not all neophytes hate it, 
and believe it or not, 15 percent of the population still lives without a computer and a cell phone. 

The survey unearthed some subtle distinctions:  Not all geeks hang out online all the time.  Some 10 percent of the population are "Mobile Centrics," who use their cell phones constantly, but have very little use for computers or the Internet.  The category includes a higher-than-average number of African-Americans.

COMPLETE DESCRIPTIONS FROM PEW'S TECHNOLOGY TYPOLOGY (PDF FILE)

Many heavy tech users aren't all that happy about being wired. Some are "Lackluster Veterans," who have been using the Internet since its inception. For them, the thrill is gone.  In fact, many seem to wish they could accidentally flush their Blackberries down the toilet.  They represent about 8 percent of the population. Another 10 percent are "Connected But Hassled." These users aren't quite as experienced as the "Lackluster Veterans," but they share the desire to disconnect from the grid once in a while. They really don't see the benefit of being connected to co-workers constantly – only 9 percent in this group think technology makes them more productive.  Many say they are facing "information overload."

20 percent are unhappy with technology
"This group … has a lot of technology, they use it frequently, but they are dissatisfied with what technology offers them. That means 20 percent of the adult population is not altogether pleased with technology.  That was surprising to me," Horrigan said.

On the other end of the spectrum are "Omnivores," "Connectors," and "Productivity Enhancers."  "Omnivores" buy all the latest gadgets and use them to the fullest. They post comments on blogs (like this one), they make and share digital movies and they log on constantly.  Nine out of 10 have broadband access at home, 70 percent are men, and 42 percent are students. About 8 percent of the population could be called "Omnivores," the study suggests. Another 7 percent are "Connectors." Also avid tech users, they are much more likely to use networking Web sites and cell phones to organize social events rather than spend time blogging. This group tends to be thirtysomething women.

"For this group, too much (technology) is terrific," Horrigan said.

Down the scale just a bit are the "Productivity Enhancers," who use tech mostly at work, but have very positive feelings about it.

Most users surveyed by Pew had a generally positive attitude toward 21st Century gadgetry – but a sizable minority had more mixed feelings. About 30 percent of those surveyed indicated they were either "not thrilled," "burdened," or downright "annoyed" with technology. And another 15 percent have spurned it all together, remaining "off the network" by rejecting both cell phones and computers. 

More surprises
Other surprising facts from the study:
• Despite what you might see at the bus stop or on the train, only 20 percent of the population has iPods or MP3 players and only 11 percent own a Blackberry or other palm-sized computer.
• 27 percent of Americans still don't have a cell phone.
• 45 percent don't own a digital camera.
• Nearly 1 in 5 Internet users have posted a comment on a blog or newsgroup.
• Only 7 percent have ever listened to a podcast, and only 1 percent told surveyors they'd listened to a podcast "yesterday."
• Across the spectrum, many tech users suspect their gadgets have more functionality than they are using – for example, 82 percent of elite "connectors" think their tech toys can do more.

Toward the bottom of the spectrum are "Light but Satisfied" users (15 percent) and "Indifferents" (11 percent). Both groups own the most basic cell phones and limit their Internet use. They have rather ho-hum notions about their gadgets.  On the other hand, another 8 percent on the lower end of the tech spectrum are "Inexperienced Experimenters." These users, often older women, don't know a lot about their gadgets, but they are having fun tinkering with them.

"These are people who in spite of coming to technology later are up for trying new things," Horrigan said.

LIVE VOTE: WHICH TYPE ARE YOU?

The Pew typology does ultimately divide users into three familiar tiers – "elite" tech users, medium users, and those with few gadgets. But the study shows that within each group are both tech lovers and tech haters.

Perhaps most surprising of all to those of us who live "On the Network" all the time: We're still a minority.  While 31 percent of the population is avid, or "elite" tech users, fully 49 percent rarely use high-tech gadgets. 

"I sense the Internet in general is making more inroads into everybody's lives," Horrigan said.  "But about half the population is less engaged with technology, and they think that's fine."

A federal grand jury has indicted online payment company E-Gold, accusing the company of money laundering, conspiracy, and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business.

The indictment, which was unsealed Tuesday, says the company has long known its service was a tool for identity thieves, child pornographers, and other cybercrooks, but did little to stop them.

The company's public denial, published on its Web site, calls the charges "bogus," and says the Justice Departent is trying to "demonize" the service.

Federal authorities accuse E-Gold of helping criminals collect and transfer millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains. The stakes were high, the government alleges.  Criminals operating an investment scam using 10 specific E-Gold accounts were able to move $146 million through the E-Gold system, the indictment says.  It also accuses the company of knowingly allowing child pornographers to move money through the E-Gold system.

The company denies it has any role in illegal activities.

E-Gold's emphatic denial
"(E-Gold) vigorously denies the charges, taking particular exception to the allegations that either company ever turned a blind eye to payments for child pornography or for the sale of stolen identity and credit card information," E-Gold founder Douglas Jackson wrote on the firm's Web site. "With regard to child pornography, the government knows full well that their allegations are false, yet they highlight these irresponsible and purposely damaging statements in order to demonize e-gold in the eyes of the public."

The charges facing Jackson and other company executives are serious – the conspiracy charge relating to money laundering could carry a 20-year prison sentence.

Many consumers might not be familiar with E-Gold, but it's name that appears frequently in chat rooms devoted to criminal activity. Credit card thieves who trade in stole account numbers announce "Will accept E-gold" frequently while soliciting business online.

Web users who want to transfer money using E-Gold simply sign up for the service and deposit $1,000 or more from a traditional bank account into an E-Gold account.  Then, electronic money can be sent or accepted online from anywhere in the world, similar to eBay's PayPal service. E-Gold electronic money is backed by the precious metal, the company says. 

In 2005, E-Gold said it had 2.5 million accountholders who performed 39,000 transactions involving $6.3 million on a typical day.

Users like 'Mickey' and 'Donald'
In the indictment, federal authorities say it was easy for E-Gold users to remain completely anonymous, making the service a useful tool for criminals.  After seizing E-Gold records earlier this year, investigators found accounts opened using names like "Mickey Mouse," "Donald Duck," "Anonymous Man," "bud weiser" and "No name."

But E-Gold's lawyers deny its users can remain anonymous. E-Gold attorney Andrew Ittleman said no consumer can join the service without depositing money through other banking institutions. Records at those institutions make E-Gold user identities traceable.

"If I were a criminal, E-Gold would be the last place I would want to transact," Ittleman said.

The Justice Department disagrees. It says the service was popular with criminals who operated investment scams called HYIPs (high-yield investment programs) -- a form of pyramid scheme -- and other get-rich quick programs. The indictment says thousands of accounts were opened using the letters "hyip" in the account holder's name or e-mail address. 

"Douglas Jackson and his associates operated a sophisticated and widespread international money remitting business, unsupervised and unregulated by any entity in the world, which allowed for anonymous transfers of value at a click of a mouse," said U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor, in a statement.  "Not surprisingly, criminals of every stripe gravitated to E-Gold as a place to move their money with impunity.  As alleged in the indictment, the defendants in this case knowingly allowed them to do so and profited from their crimes." 

Popular with online crooks
Dan Clements runs Affinion Group's CardCops.com, an anti-fraud site that monitors thousands of criminal chat rooms. Online criminals of all stripes often advertise their willingness to trade in E-Gold, he said.

"Everybody advertises they accept E-Gold for payment in ID theft and credit card fraud," he said. That alone doesn't make E-Gold an accomplice, however. Criminals often say they'll take Western Union payments, too, Clements said.

Both payment systems involves what's known in the industry as "final payment" -- once the money goes, there's no way to get it back. Consumers who erroneously send E-Gold or Western Union payment to a criminal cannot get refunds. That stands in start contrast to credit card payments, where consumers regularly get their money back after crimes.
As final payment mechanisms, both Western Union and E-Gold are attractive to criminals.

On its site, E-Gold advertises that there are no chargebacks, and that users "Get paid, stay paid."

"That is a big issue for consumer protection ... payment recovery," said Avivah Litan, a fraud analyst for research firm Gartner. "It's good to have non-bank payment systems but you have to make sure consumers are protected."

'Child porn' and 'scammer' accounts
The government says the existence of criminal activity on the site was obvious -- and that E-Gold officials were aware of it. Account records of some customers were tagged with labels like "child porn," "scammer" and "CC fraud," but allowed to continue performing transactions, the indictment says.

The government said a series of accounts labeled "Kidz Index" and "lolitanymphets" were used in $474,000 worth of transactions.

The indictment also accuses E-Gold of being uncooperative in efforts to track criminal activity. Subpoenas were redirected through a law firm in Bermuda, for example, "falsely making it appear as if the E-Gold operation was actually located offshore." E-Gold's operation was entirely located in Mebourne, Fla., the indictment says.

E-Gold's attorneys say they've been cooperating with regulators for years, and other accusations in the indictment are unfounded. Mitchell Furst, another E-Gold attorney, equated prosecuting E-Gold for cybercrimes with prosecuting an ATM manufacturer after a criminal withdraws cash from a machine and buys drugs with it. 

"(This case) is the result of huge misunderstanding and a closed mind on the part of the government as to how E-Gold works," Furst said.