In case you had any doubts that credit card firms would find ways to make up for revenue lost through recent reforms passed by Congress, let me put them to rest.  Online shoppers take note:  It's now possible that you'll be charged a foreign transaction fee on some purchases without ever leaving the U.S.

Bil Corry of Indiana spotted the new fee while carefully reading mail from Bank of America recently.  Corry is an Internet Age consumer. He shops online and doesn't limit himself to U.S. companies.  By shopping around the planet, he can save a little money.  He buys Web- hosting services from a company in Amsterdam and registers domains with a company in France.  But soon, Bank of America will be eating into those discounts.  Corry recently received a letter saying the bank would help itself to 2 percent of each transaction he had with a foreign company -- even if he never leaves the U.S. and even if the transaction is completed in U.S. dollars.

There's nothing new about credit card firms carving themselves a big chunk of change from foreign travelers.  Starting in 2005, overseas vacationers and business travelers noticed their monthly statements were peppered with these fees, which can add as much as $4 to every $100 stay at a hotel. But foreign transaction fees date back to the previous decade, when card issuers hid them in currency conversion calculations, baking an extra cut into their exchange rates.  An epic class-action lawsuit followed, and the credit card associations were ordered to issue a whopping $800 million in refunds.  Banks also were ordered to change their ways – the fees must now be clearly spelled out on billing statements.  It's too late to claim any refund money, but you can learn more here: http://www.ccfsettlement.com/

The rationale behind the foreign transaction fee is this: The bank had to pay for currency conversion and also do some fancy accounting work.  But for that reasoning to hold up, consumers must literally be overseas and literally buy things in other currencies.   Well, forget that.

Here's how Bank of America explains the new fee in a letter to consumers sent in April:

"We are expanding the definition of 'foreign transactions' to include transactions in U.S. dollars if they are made or processed outside of the United States. ... Foreign transactions include, for example, online purchases from foreign merchants."

Bill Hardekopf, who operates the credit card information site LowCards.com, thinks the rationale behind the new policy is simple: increased revenue.

"I think we will see this with the credit card reform, other fees that will crop up that we don't even know about right now," he said.  "(Congress) didn't really put the handcuffs on fees like they did interest rates."

Hardekopf says that Discover, Citigroup and Bank of America all jumped on the expanded definition of foreign transactions earlier this year.   U.S. consumers who book online travel from home with foreign airlines have been particularly hard hit, he says.

"It means shopping online could cost you an additional 3 percent of your purchase if that online merchant is based in another country," he said. "If you purchase a high-priced item, that additional fee can be quite a surprise."

It's this element of surprise that most concerns Corry, who always carefully reads his fine-print mail.  With merchants from around the world just a click away -- and nearly all accepting Visa and MasterCard -- consumers don't always know where a Web company is based, he said.

"In this day and age of global commerce, I'm wondering how many people will even realize that their purchases are being processed outside of the United States?" he said.  "They may very well associate 'foreign transactions' as meaning you have to physically travel to another country and use the credit card in person and may not realize that online transactions will also count."

Red Tape Wrestling Tips

The good news: Not all cards charge 3 percent for foreign transactions. Some hit consumers with only a 1 percent fee.  That can be a dramatic difference at the end of a vacation.  Simply pulling out the "right" plastic during $2,500 vacation would save a consumer $50 ($25 vs. $75 in fees). Better still: One major card issuer -- Capital One -- charges no foreign transaction fees at all. 

This new foreign fee flimflam is yet another reason to pick your plastic carefully when shopping.  The old advice about double-checking your card's fee policy before traveling overseas now applies to anyone who shops online. Take a moment now to call your bank or visit its Web site and see how much you might get charged for buying something from a foreign company.  Know that bank operators aren't always well-informed. They might give the wrong answer, and they might know the fee by any of the following names:

• Foreign Transaction Fee
• International Transaction Fee
• Currency Conversion Fee
• International Conversion Fee

BankRate.com offers a handy card-by-card breakdown of conversion fees.

LifeLock Inc. has been ordered to change its identity theft product by a federal judge who ruled that the firm has engaged in an "unfair business practice."  

The Arizona-based company -- made famous by ads revealing CEO Todd Davis' Social Security number -- was sued by credit bureau Experian last year.  In its lawsuit, Experian said the company was violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act while placing fraud alerts on behalf of LifeLock customers.  U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford of the Central District of California agreed, and granted a motion for summary judgment last week ordering LifeLock to stop.

LifeLock CEO Todd David said his company would use "all available avenues" to fight the ruling, but argued that its impact on customers would be minimal.

Consumers who fear becoming a victim of identity theft can file a fraud alert with each of the nation's three credit bureaus: Experian, Trans Union, and Equifax.  The fraud alerts act as a flag to banks and other credit granters that they should use extra precaution when offering credit to anyone using that individual's Social Security number.  Generally, credit granters -- such as auto dealerships or retail stores offering credit cards -- are urged to call consumers to verify their identities when a fraud alert is in place.

But the basic alerts last only 90 days unless consumers go to the trouble of reapplying. LifeLock's chief product involved automating the process of renewing the alerts.  LifeLock representatives call the credit bureaus on behalf of consumers and reapply for alerts every 90 days.

Experian objected to this practice, claiming that the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires individuals to apply directly for fraud alerts themselves, making only a very narrow exception for other persons acting on behalf of an individual.  The credit bureau, which complained that LifeLock was abusing its telephone systems, said Congress never intended for companies to file fraud alerts on behalf of individuals. 

Judge Guilford agreed.

"Congress expressly excused Experian and other credit reporting agencies from placing fraud alerts requested by companies like LifeLock," he wrote in his ruling last Tuesday. "The court finds that this is a proper interpretation of the plain meaning of the statute."

The judge also agreed that LifeLock's automated fraud alert filing caused harm to Experian.

"Experian clearly incurs costs each time it must process a fraud alert made by LifeLock. These costs include the costs of allocating Experian's electronic resources and employee time, plus the maintenance costs of Experian's toll-free telephone number and Web page used to accept fraud alert requests," he said. "Experian also incurs postage and printing costs in mailing disclosure letters to each consumer on whose behalf a fraud alert is requested."

Davis said he was surprised by the judge's order, which he said favored credit bureau Experian over consumers.

"I can hire someone to do my taxes," he said.  "There's a similar concept here. ...The idea that they are somehow protecting consumers with this ruling by making them do the work doesn't make sense."

Davis said LifeLock would no longer file fraud alerts with Experian, but would continue to file alerts with Trans Union and Equifax.  Because credit bureaus are required to share alert information, he speculated that LifeLock-filed alerts would end up on Experian's files anyway.

In a statement, Experian said it was "pleased" with the court's ruling.

"This ruling is not just positive for Experian, but for consumers. Experian will continue to work with consumers to provide education and services to assist them with understanding the credit reporting system," it said.

LifeLock's bold advertisements are nearly ubiquitous.  Last January, the company announced it had raised $25.5 million in funding orchestrated by Goldman Sachs Group. Much of the money has gone to advertising, which apparently has paid off. The firm says it has 1.5 million customers now, each paying about $10 per month for the service.

Stop prescreened offers here.
Learn about stopping junk mail here
Get your free credit report here
Add a fraud alert at Experian, Equifax, or Trans Union

The full LifeLock-Experian case is slated to be heard in court during November.  Should LifeLock be ordered permanently out of the fraud alert business, Davis said the firm will continue to provide a slate of other valuable services. LifeLock removes customers from junk mail lists and preapproved credit card offer lists and provides them with copies of their credit reports, he noted. But those services also are available free to consumers who seek them out.

LifeLock also says it will assist victims with identity restoration if they ever become victims of fraud, promising to spend up to $1 million to do so. And it offers a service designed to make life easier for customers who lose their wallets.

Drowning in debt, like so many young college graduates in America, Sarah Fightmaster struggles to keep her chin up while credit cards and student loans drag her down. It all started, she says, when she applied for her first credit card as a 19-year-old college student so she could get a free DVD player. In this video, Fightmaster tells her own story.

Fightmaster, now a lawyer in Brooklyn, describes in this video how a family tragedy -- the death of a grandmother -- helped keep her afloat, thanks to an inheritance. Still, she struggles just to make her minimum payments on credit cards and loans.

With NBC producers Blayne Alexander, Hilary Guy, Sabina Mohan and editor Ed Eaves.

The credit card reform bill just passed by Congress includes tough new provisions that will legally ban some of the most egregious behavior by banks. But as in all such laws, the devil is in the details.

There's already some confusion about what the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act does and doesn't require. Here's a true-and-false primer.

The legislation caps interest rates and fees. FALSE.

The banking industry was able to successfully kill provisions that would have capped rates. The bill does address exorbitant fees -- such as a $39 fee for a payment that's one day late -- but it punts questions about rates to the Federal Reserve, which is directed to set up "reasonable" and proportional fee schedules. Those rules might be the most important part of the legislation, as increasingly, credit card fees are a bigger problem for consumers than finance charges. Stay tuned.

It will lower your credit card bills. FALSE.

Some consumers might eventually benefit from fewer penalty interest rate increases and fees. But in general, the law does not affect current rates, balances or fees.

It will raise your rates. TRUE.

Banks have nine months to operate under the old rules. They will likely sneak in as many rate increases as they can before the bill takes effect.

It will make 'good' users pay for bad users. FALSE.

Yesterday, the credit card industry persuaded many journalists to suggest the law dooms perks like frequent-flier miles. Miles are progressively devalued anyway, so that's no great loss. These perks also often seduced consumers into cards with bad terms (miles cards almost always have higher interest rates, for example). Annual fees may reappear, but for many consumers, "free" cards with sneaky fees are more expensive than cards with a predictable annual fee. And in the past six months, "good" credit cardholders have been treated to huge rate increases and credit limit restrictions anyway – not because of federal law, but because of the banks'bad business practices. In general, the credit card industry has made its living through ill-gotten gains earned mainly through deception and confusion. Any business built that way is doomed to fail. Purging the industry of treachery is good in the long run.

It bans retroactive interest rate hikes. SORT OF.

Among the more offensive credit card practices has been the implementation of penalty rates on past balances. Currently, if you have a card with a $2,000 balance at 8 percent, the bank can raise your rate to 29 percent for any reason -- and the increase covers past purchases and unpaid balances. Now, such rate increases will only apply to new purchases under some conditions, and that's good. There are exceptions, however. If you are 60 days late paying your bill, the rate can reach back into old balances (thereby guaranteeing that a consumer who is 60 days late can't possibly hope to pay the debt off). Also, cards with variable rates are exempt. Expect to see many more variable rate cards in the coming months.

It speeds up the rules issued by the Federal Reserve earlier this year. FALSE.

The bill gives banks nine months to prepare for the changes, meaning they can still carry on behaving badly until at least February 2010. The Fed rules published earlier this year were set to take effect in July 2010, so there's not a dramatic change.

It substantially improves upon the credit card regulations already approved by the Federal Reserve. TRUE.

The 60-day provision for retroactive rates, for example, is a valuable added benefit for consumers. So are the rules limiting marketing to young adults and mandating "reasonable" fees. It's also significant that these changes are now part of U.S. law, and not merely banking regulations.

It bans over-the-limit fees. WE'LL SEE.

The bill will require consumers to "opt in" for over-limit coverage and the resulting fees. All consumers should turn this feature off. We'll see how easy that is when implemented.

It bans two cycle billing and universal default. TRUE.

These two unseemly practices have already been abandoned by most card issuers. In universal default, banks raised rates because consumers were late on unrelated bills. In two-cycle billing, banks charged interest on two months worth of purchases even if the consumer was only late on one'months full payment. A law banning them permanently is good, however.

Even when interest rates are jacked up, consumers have new rights. TRUE.

Consumers slapped with rate increases can opt to pay off their existing balances at the old rate in reasonable time frames (either five years or twice the latest minimum payment per month). That's a vital new protection.

It will strike a stake through the heart of those fee-harvester cards. FALSE, BUT…

Recently, we wrote about cards targeting credit-troubled consumers that arrive with $250 limits and nearly $200 in fees. According to the bill, fees cannot exceed 25 percent of the initial credit limit.In the example above, the highest fee could be $62.50. While not eliminating fee-harvester cards, the law will make them fairer.

The bill also allows carrying of loaded guns in national parks. TRUE.

Oh, the irony. The fine print in a law banning fine print does include a provision that allows carrying of loaded weapons into national parks. Surprisingly, the amendment passed by a wide margin and with little discussion.

Consumers should celebrate. A LITTLE.

This is the first important new consumer protection approved by Congress in a long time, and the credit card issuers had it coming. But while the law does make some fees illegal, stopping sneaky behavior by banks is a bit like a game of Whack-a-Mole. Banks are pretty creative about this kind of thing. For example, while the unfair practice of universal default has been eliminated, it's already been replaced by other chicanery. Earlier this year, we told you that banks were raising rates and lowering credit limits based on where consumers shop. Shopping at a store which is also frequented by consumers who tend to be late on their credit card bills will get you dinged. If you want to be really alarmed about this practice, read this New York Times story from the weekend. More important than any new law that's passed is a clear message from the White House and government regulators that the era of anything goes, "Gotcha" banking has come to an end. Only time will tell if that message has been delivered.

When President Barack Obama signs credit card reform legislation -- which should happen any day now -- that will be a great day for consumers.  The legislation represents the first significant upgrade to American consumer rights in a long time.  The bill has some real teeth -- it's much stronger than the original bill that's been floating around the House of Representatives for more than a year. Clearly, the president threw all his political power behind the effort to rein in abusive credit card practices, delivering speech after speech imploring changes and even calling issuers to the White House for a stern reality check.

Too bad the president is backing the wrong horse. 

While $39 over-limit fees are hideously unfair and deserving of legislative attention, the number that really needs attention is 649,917 -- the number of U.S. homes that entered foreclosure last quarter.

Credit card debt is not the most serious problem facing America today. Empty houses are. Sneaky late fees and arbitrary interest rate hikes are terrible -- but foreclosures and homeowners who are severely under water carry exponentially higher consequences.  For now, however, the Obama administration has decided to take the road more traveled. It has taken up the populist cause of credit card reform while abandoning dramatic mortgage market reform that Obama promised in October and again in February. 

I cheer the credit card bill, and frequent readers of this column know I have been urging those changes for many years.  I don't lightly surrender credit card issues as a top priority.  But last week, Obama quietly watched as efforts to give struggling homeowners help in bankruptcy court  died a legislative death. That was a mistake.

How did it happen? Ask Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democrat who first introduced Obama to the United States at the 2004 Democratic convention.

"And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," he told a  Chicago radio station recently.

Durbin is the Senate's bankruptcy reform champion. His proposal to allow mortgage rewriting by  bankruptcy judges was voted down 51-45 in the Senate, with 12 Democrats joining all Republicans in stopping the effort.  While those 12 senators -- including Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Max Baucus of Montana and Tim Johnson of South Dakota-- were the direct reason the legislation died, Obama offered no help. In stark contrast to his aggressive public stance on credit card reform, Obama was silent on mortgage/bankruptcy reform.

'A side show compared to the mortgage issue'
Adam Levitan, a Georgetown professor and bankruptcy expert, was disappointed that the administration chose to champion bank credit card reform over bankruptcy reform.

"Obama put his personal prestige on the line for the credit card issue ... and the shame of it is, while I support the credit card legislation, it's just not that important," he said. "It's a side show compared to the mortgage issue. But politically it's an easier sell."

Why is bankruptcy reform so important? Currently, consumers who declare Chapter 13 bankruptcy -- the kind where debtors repay their loans but get extra time and some debt relief -- find themselves before a federal judge who gathers all the debt-holders into a room and forges a compromise payment plan. Credit card firms, personal loan holders -- everybody takes a hit, based on what the debtor can realistically pay.

But currently, primary mortgages are exempt from the process. There's no way to reduce a mortgage loan in bankruptcy.  Mind you, mortgages on second homes can be reduced. So can loans for cars, boats investment properties, etc. Primary mortgages stand alone, outside bankruptcy courts.

Naturally, the banking industry likes things this way and has been fighting to keep primary mortgages out of bankruptcy proceedings.

The issue has rankled consumer advocates for decades, but it took front and center as the number of U.S. foreclosures skyrocketed in 2008.  Bankruptcy mortgage reductions – known by the pejorative term "cram downs" by the banking industry -- could help 1.7 million consumers avoid foreclosure, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. The mere possibility of a cram down also provides motivation for banks to work with consumers on voluntary modifications, because the bank might lose more in a bankruptcy filing.

In October, when Wall Street banks went looking for a $700 billion bailout from the U.S. Treasury, consumer advocates tried to seize the moment and exact bankruptcy reform in exchange for bailout money.  At the time Obama said the bailout bill was so urgent that it shouldn't be bogged down with the potentially contentious bankruptcy provision. He repeatedly said he supported the change, however, and that it would come. He repeated that promise in February, after taking office, when the administration sketched out its housing rescue plans.

But when bankruptcy reform died in the Senate, Obama was silent.

Levitan, the Georgetown professor, said Obama's failure to go to bat for bankruptcy cause could doom the administration's other efforts to help troubled homeowners. So far, the administration has decided to rely on voluntarily mortgage modifications from banks, augmented by incentives from the government in the form of direct payments to banks that complete modifications.  (See my colleague John Schoen's overview of the plan.)

"It's quite bad for consumers," Levitan said."The Obama plan was designed as a combination of carrot and stick. We are now left with only carrot and no stick. In some ways, it's the worst of all worlds."

Most consumer agencies, excited to have someone from "their team" in the White House, aren't making much noise about the bankruptcy issue. After years of feeling ignored, they are thrilled to get movement on the credit card issue. In fact, one consumer advocate I spoke to said she believed that Obama's abandonment of the bankruptcy reform was part of a strategy -- banks couldn't swallow both credit card and mortgage changes at the same time, she speculated, so he went with the easiest step first and plans to take on the harder issue later.  I hope she's right.

Levitan thinks changes in bankruptcy law might still be in the cards, but he interprets the events of the past few weeks differently.  The current administration, he says, is hoping to "muddle through" the housing crisis without making substantial changes to the mortgage market. 

"If an acute crisis can be avoided, they'll settle for that," he said. "The Obama plan was never super aggressive. It was always a mitigation plan not a solution."

Good, but tepid, market reforms
Additional housing market reforms that are being discussed in three separate congressional bills involve important, but minor technical changes to the market.  A House bill would prevent mortgage originators from selling off all their loans to investors, which would force them to keep "skin in the game," and provide an incentive to more carefully screen applicants. Lenders would have to keep at least 5 percent of their loans on the books, according to the bill's provisions. Part of the mortgage meltdown was blamed on originators dumping all their loans on under-informed investors, giving originators no incentive to avoid making bad loans.

This "skin in the game" provision won't work, however, if lenders are allowed to insure themselves against losses in these loans.

The same bill, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, would ban many kinds of early-payment penalties and prohibit lenders from steering consumers into higher-cost loans when they could qualify for cheaper loans.  The penalty provisions are weak though: Lenders would have 90 days to act after receiving consumer complaints, allowing banks to have what is sometimes called a "first bite at the apple."  The most profitable strategy for a bank would be to mistreat all customers, then modify loans for the few consumers who noticed and complained.

Kathleen Day, spokeswoman for the Center for Responsible Lending, says the legislation isn't perfect, but it's a good start.

"We wish it were stronger, but it's much better than the (legislation proposed last fall)," she said.  "At its core, this legislation provides that mortgage lenders may only make mortgages that a consumer can afford to repay."

The legislation, which is still working its way through Congress along with two other similar bills, will help many future homebuyers.  So will a new HUD-1 form, the key document consumers sign at mortgage closings, which take effect in place Jan. 1 The new form more clearly explains fees and other costs to purchasers.

But at its their core, these mortgage reform efforts aren't designed to help struggling borrowers much. They are left with the carrot-but-no-stick plan mortgage rescue plan.  So far little has been done to slow the national foreclosure rate, which doubled in the first quarter of this year, compared to last year. And it does nothing to help the one in five homeowners who live in a building that's not worth their mortgage. 

Perhaps Obama and his economic advisers have changed their mind on bankruptcy modification since his promises in October and February. There is a legitimate debate to be had about the bankruptcy option. Banks argue that allowing mortgage loans into bankruptcy would raise the cost of all mortgages and dramatically change the nature of contracts between consumers and banks.  Perhaps the administration now sees this issue the banks' way. If so, Obama's supporters, and consumers sitting in under-water homes, deserve an explanation.  Perhaps during all the predictable celebration and back-slapping about credit card reform, Obama could take a moment to address the empty home problem.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it really make a sound? If a consumer complaint about cell phones is closed but no one has even read it, will any company care?

The question is not rhetorical. If a consumer feels mistreated by his or her cell phone company, federal law offers the aggrieved person only one court of appeal: the Federal Communications Commission's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau. The process is easy and straightforward. Click here, fill out a few online forms, and your complaint is filed.

Click for the entire series.

Easy does not mean effective, however. A study by the Government Accountability Office released last year found that 9 out of 10 times, the FCC simply closes the complaint without taking any action. Worse yet, the government auditors said last year, the FCC can't say why it closed the cases. It doesn't even track that.

The short answer to the question "How do I complain about my cell phone company?" is "Tell the FCC." That's not necessarily the best way, however. So today, in part two of our "How to Complain About" series, we'll describe the formal complaint process and then the effective complaint process.

From mid-2007 to mid-2008 — the most recent period for which data are available — the FCC received 52,823 complaints about wireless companies. They apparently fell on deaf ears.

There's a simple reason for this, said the auditors. The FCC is far more interested in quickly closing cases and generating statistics than in finding out what's going on.

That was my experience late last year when I decided to submit myself to the FCC complaint process. I felt Sprint was overcharging me on my last bill when I canceled my service. On Dec. 5, I filed an online FCC complaint. In mid-January, I received notice that the FCC had opened an "informal" investigation. Soon after, I received a letter from Sprint saying I was wrong. The FCC, which also received the letter, then declared the case closed.

The experience made the FCC seem much more like a re-mailing service than a government agency ready to protect me. After all, I could have sent the letter to Sprint myself. Of course, there was an avenue to appeal my case, but only if I paid a $190 filing fee.

(You can read more about this in "Sprint: Judge and Jury").

Filing an FCC complaint can feel fruitless, but it's still a good idea. Numbers really do matter. A surge in complaints could have a meaningful impact now, with a set of new faces poised to take over as FCC commissioners. Mignon Clyburn of South Carolina was named last week to fill the last remaining opening on the commission. Clyburn, who was a member of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and is a former newspaper publisher, might be more sympathetic to consumer issues. Now would be a good time to grab her attention and the attention of Julius Genachowski, who was nominated as FCC chairwoman in January. Both are awaiting congressional confirmation. You can do that by filling out the FCC's online complaint form.

Also, there is a real benefit to following through with a complaint. When the FCC opened its informal investigation into my case, I received a personal e-mail from Sprint's Executive & Regulatory Services department. While I did not get the answer I wanted, the woman who contacted me was competent and polite — hardly a given when dealing with a main customer support line. And she was able to quickly solve a secondary problem for me: Sprint had actually failed to terminate my contract when I requested. Had I not filed the complaint, I wouldn't have had a paper trail proving I'd requested service termination, and I wouldn't have had a personal contact to help me. So you should file a complaint, too.

The indirect route
But don't stop there. It may be some time before the FCC's rubber-stamp mentality is stamped out. So if you're trying to get fair treatment from your cell phone company, you'll probably have to try a few indirect routes.

State public utility commissions do not have direct regulatory oversight of cell phone firms, but they can offer influence. Some states, like Connecticut, collect and compile cell phone industry complaint data, which can affect policy and future legislative reforms. It's easy to find the right address or phone number for your state utility board. Just visit this Web site and pick your state.

You might get more effective results by complaining directly to your state attorney general's office and, in particular, its office of consumer affairs. While your state's top cop doesn't have direct authority over cell phone firms, he or she can file a lawsuit on your behalf. But more practically, a phone call or letter from the attorney general often does get the attention of a cell phone company. Don't be shy about calling. Many states have very effective legal staffs, and it's often easier than you think to speak directly with an attorney. Because most attorneys general are hard at work running for future office, they are often very good about handling constituents' complaints.

Some larger cities and counties have their own consumer advocacy offices. Those are worth contacting, as well.

The easiest way to find state and local advocates, including your state attorney general's office, is to click here.

Finally, many consumers overlook the obvious: Getting help from the offending company. I know many of you have already become disenchanted after an unsatisfying bout with front-line customer service operators. But don't give up yet. Try alternative routes. One that's often successful: Search online for the office of the CEO and e-mail, call, or write a letter. You'll want to find the "office of executive service" or a similarly named group within the company. The addresses aren't hard to find with a little Googling, but you'll usually have luck if you call the firm's main switchboard and ask for the CEO's office by name. One place to start is Consumerist.com, which offers a handy list of CEO names and switchboard numbers.

Also, a welcome trend at cell phone firms is the creation of internal "customer advocate groups."
• Sprint has one, which can be reached by sending an e-mail to cag@sprint.com. The president of the group, Bill Griffiths, is constructively perusing complaints about Sprint on blogs around the Web and offering help to unhappy consumers. But the firm says consumers should still try standard channels as their first option, such as Sprint's home page or toll-free number. They can also send an e-mail to Dan@sprint.com, an e-mail address named after Sprint CEO Dan Hesse, and designed to offer quick access to customer service.
• Verizon also has a "Customer Advocacy Group," but it currently offers only an online form.
• T-Mobile Customers must go through a normal customer contact Web site.
Though the company offers useful forums for customers there.
• AT&T Wireless offers only its general customer support page.

Would you share the most intimate details of your life with a stranger, such as cheating on your taxes or sleeping with a friend's spouse? You'd be more likely to tell if you thought everyone else was doing it, say a group of researchers at Carnegie Mellon University.

The results of their study could help explain the slow but steady march toward "anything goes" behavior on social networking sites like Facebook, where users are notorious for revealing too much information about themselves.

Msnbc.com has obtained a copy of the report, which is to be released next month. In it, the researchers worried about what they called a "frog effect" on the public. Like a frog that doesn't notice it's in danger when sitting in water that slowly comes to a boil, consumers are not noticing that personal privacy standards are slowly eroding.

A befuddling conflict
The group of behavioral scientists were looking for answers to a vexing question that dogs nearly every privacy-related research project: People routinely say they care deeply about privacy, then consistently act otherwise.

In the study, the group asked nearly 2,000 adults a series of sensitive, "self-revelatory" questions. They ranged from tame (Have you ever left a room with the light on?) to the dramatic (Have you ever had sex with the current partner of a friend?). After each question, the researchers showed the test-takers fake results offering up alleged answers from other test takers. Some of the fake results showed the majority admitted to a variety of these unethical behaviors; others showed that most test-takers had denied taking part in the behaviors, or refused to answer the questions.

Those who thought their fellow test-takers were admitting to a string of bad behaviors were 27 percent more likely to reveal intimate details of their lives, even after the researchers asked for their private e-mail address.

"We call this effect 'herding.' When people observe more disclosure, they become more likely to disclosure similarly sensitive information," said privacy and economics researcher Alessandro Acquisti, one of the authors of the study. "As we see more people revealing sensitive information, we also become more likely to do it."

Subtle scramble of questions
The study did not track straight-line confessions – such as, consumers who saw other people admit to relationship cheating were more likely to confess cheating themselves. Instead, the questions were scrambled to examine a more subtle point: People who thought others were confessing to anything were compelled share confessions about themselves.

"So if I see people admitting cheating on their wives, then I am more likely to admit cheating on my taxes," Acquisti said.

There was a group of test-takers who didn't fall for the "manipulation," Acquisti said -- a group sometimes called "privacy-centric." Consumers who refused to give their e-mail address during the test showed no variance in their likelihood to confess.

It was a small group, however -- 87 percent of test-takers willingly surrendered their e-mail. The information was then scrambled to protect the privacy of the test takers.

The power of "herding" on privacy standards could have a compounding effect on consumers, Acquisti said. Consumers who are nudged towards self-revelation by others will keep pushing the standards further and further away from privacy.

"It's a one-way problem," he said. "The study implies that we are going a direction from which we cannot make a U-turn. More revelations push us to more revelations push us to more revelations. It's more and more common for everybody to put life out there in public."

Larry Ponemon, who runs privacy research firm The Ponemon Institute, said he thought the study results were consistent with other research he's seen indicating that people seem to have a primal need to share details about their lives.

The 'torment' of secrets
"There is a torment in keeping secrets," he said. "People have a willingness to share in an environment like a social network. They are motivated to share because there is a psychological release … people really don't want to keep secrets."

Social networking sites are benefitting from this desire to share, he said. But he agreed with the Carnegie Mellon researchers that normal boundaries for selectively sharing information within predefined groups are slowly eroding.

"There are thresholds for sharing information, but they seem to be going away," he said.

In a second, related study, the Carnegie Mellon researchers tested two opposing theories about seducing reluctant test-takers to share details of their lives and came up with a surprising result. One group was asked progressively more sensitive questions, under the theory that consumers could slowly be led down a path towards more revelation – a technique sometimes called the "foot in the door" strategy. But it didn't work as well as the opposite tactic: Asking the most invasive question first, then asking the easier questions. Test-takers confronted abruptly like that – using what's called the "door in the face" strategy – shared more. That seems to suggest consumers are less unnerved by medium-range invasive questions when they subconsciously compare them to an initial abrupt question, like "Have you ever fantasized about sex with a minor?"

A favorite technique at car lots
This technique should be familiar to anyone who's ever purchased a new car. Dealerships routinely make "highball" offers initially, in an attempt to slide a buyer's potential price range higher. For example, if a dealer initially offered to sell a car for $25,000, then drops the price to $23,000, the buyer will feel like he or she got a better price than if the dealer offered $23,000 on the first pass.

In sales, the technique is often called "anchoring." A seller who can get a buyer to reposition their subconscious anchor higher will usually get a higher price.

The same principles apply in privacy decisions, Acquisti said. However, because privacy transactions are hard to quantify, it's hard to know what you're "paying" when you reveal too much about yourself on Facebook. And it's hard to know where the downward spiral away from privacy might stop.

"I do feel that as a society our trajectory is going pretty clearly towards more and more information revelation, which seems to create and fewer constraints for privacy," he said. That's not necessarily a bad thing, he said. Privacy is naturally a social standard, and each generation and social group can define its own standard. But the end of all such standards is a disturbing possibility, he added.

"Our ability to selectively disclose information about ourselves to different groups of people is part of what makes us human," he said.