Men see bikini-clad women as objects: Psychologists

It may seem pretty obvious to say that men perceive women in sexy bathing suits as objects, But now there's actual scientific evidence to back it up.

New research shows that, in men, the brain areas associated with handling tools and the intention to perform actions light up when viewing images of women in bikinis.

The research was presented this week by Susan Fiske, professor of psychology at Princeton University, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"This is just the first study which was focused on the idea that men of a certain age view sex as a highly desirable goal, and if you present them with a provocative woman, then that will tend to prime goal-related responses," she says.

Although consistent with conventional wisdom, the way that men may depersonalize sexual images of women is not entirely something they control. In fact, it's a byproduct of human evolution, experts say. The first male humans had an incentive to seek fertile women as the means of spreading their genes.

"They're not fully conscious responses, and so people don't know the extent to which they're being influenced," Fiske said. "It's important to recognize the effects."

The participants, 21 heterosexual male undergraduates at Princeton University, took questionnaires to determine whether they harbor "benevolent" sexism, which includes the belief that a woman's place is in the home, or hostile sexism, a more adversarial viewpoint which includes the belief that women attempt to dominate men.

In the men who scored highest on hostile sexism, the part of the brain associated with analyzing another person's thoughts, feelings and intentions was inactive while viewing scantily clad women, Fiske said.

Men also remember these women's bodies better than those of fully-clothed women, Fiske said. Each image was shown for only a fraction of a second.

This study looked specifically at men, and did not test women's responses to similar images.

A supplementary study on both male and female undergraduates found that men tend to associate bikini-clad women with first-person action verbs such as I "push," "handle" and "grab" instead of the third-person forms such as she "pushes," "handles" and "grabs." They associated fully clothed women, on the other hand, with the third-person forms, indicating these women were perceived as in control of their own actions. "The females who took the test did not show this effect," Fiske said.

"That goes along with the idea that the man looking at a woman in a bikini sees her as the object of action," Fiske said.

The findings are consistent with previous work in the field, and resonate, for example, with the abundance of female strip clubs in comparison to male strip clubs, said Dr. Charles Raison, psychiatrist and director of the Mind/Body Institute at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Raison was not involved in the study.

Previous research found that people tend to similarly dehumanize those who are homeless or drug addicts, although the phenomenon in this case is somewhat different, Fiske said. People have reactions of avoidance toward the homeless and drug addicts, and the opposite for scantily clad women.

The broader purpose of the research was to explore circumstances under which people treat one another as the means to an end, Fiske said.

Past studies have also shown that when men view images of highly sexualized women, and then interact with a woman in a separate setting, they are more likely to have sexual words on their minds, she said. They are also more likely to remember the woman's physical appearance, and sit closer to her -- for instance, at a job interview.

"Taken together, the research suggests that viewing certain images is not appropriate in the workplace," Fiske said.

"I'm not advocating censorship, but I do think people need to know what settings should discourage the display and possession of these kinds of things," she said.

"Both women and men have something to learn from this line of research," Raison said. "Women should be aware of how they are perceived when wearing provocative clothing, and men shouldn't let feelings of impersonal sexual longing interfere with their more personal relationships with other women, including female friends. "Many men make foolish choices because of sexual attraction," he said.

"The suggestion might be that there's some hard-wiring there that can interfere with the average man's ability to interact on deeper levels with really hot looking stranger women in bikinis," he said.

Women may also depersonalize men in certain situations, but published research on the subject has not been done, experts say. Evolutionary psychology would theorize that men view women as objects in terms of their youth and apparent fertility, while women might view men as instrumental in terms of their status and resources, Fiske said. Another avenue to explore would be showing images of men's wives and girlfriends in bikinis, Raison said. He predicts the objectifying effect would not happen in this context.

Worst EVER airport freak out?

Phone capture video of hysterical woman an Internet sensation

The cellphone video of a Chinese woman freaking out at a Hong Kong airport - because she missed her Cathay Pacific flight to San Francisco - is now one of the most viewed and commented on videos on the sharing website YouTube this week. Do you feel sorry for the woman or find her over-the-top airport breakdown to be amusing? Or, A bit of both?

Cheque Fraud: A new twist on an old con

Michael Henneman* thought he won a $500,000 lottery.

All the recently laid off 59-yr old widower had to do was pay a processing fee.

Mr. Henneman didn't recall buying any lottery tickets (especially for a lottery in the UK, as he lived in the United States) but the email he received was confirming that he was in fact the winner of the auction...maybe someone else had one on his behalf? Anyways, this was the answer to Michael's prayers, he would be able to pay off his mounting debts.

Henneman sent $800. Then another $1,500.

But when the "lottery" people asked for a third payment of $2,500, Henneman grew suspicious.

Henneman told the company that promised the lottery winnings that he couldn't afford to send more money. So the company told Henneman they would send him a cheque to cover all further fees.

Still suspicious, Henneman asked his bank to examine the cheque.

It was a fake and of course, so was the lottery.

Luckily, Henneman's bank was able to detect the fake cheque right away. Most cheque-clearing systems used by North American banks don't know, with 100% certainty, for months if a cheque is good.

That's because cheques have to physically travel between banks, branches and processing centres to be truly verified. Until the journey between the bank where the cheque is deposited and the paying bank is completed, there is no confirmation that a cheque is legitimate.

The depositing bank essentially credits the depositor with the funds while the cheque undergoes the "clearing" process.

It can take a long time for a bank to figure out a cheque is fake and conmen rely on those bank lag times in order to pull off their crime.

Turns out that Michael Henneman, living in New York, was just one of the many people (mostly seniors or others on fixed budgets are the ones "hit" most) targeted by the latest version of fake cheque fraud. It's new twist on an old con. Henneman is one of thousands who were told they'd won a lottery, but had to pay fees in order to receive their prize. But this time fake checks were part of the equation. Victims were told to deposit the check and return the money. By the time the fake checks bounced, the crooks were long gone and the victims were on the hook for the money from the banks.

While Henneman lost a couple thousand dollars, others lose much, much more.

It's estimated that gangsters flood Canada and the United States with billions of dollars worth of fake checks, every single year.

As RCMP Staff Sargeant Tim Olmstead, who investigated the Michael Henneman case, explains, check fraud schemes, operating out of Canada are a growing problem.

"Well, it's a huge problem and we actually have a fairly significant task force right out of this section [where] that's all they do is that type of mass marketing fraud," Sargeant Olmstead says.

The RCMP, in fact, had the Burnaby, BC check fraud operation under surveillance and eventually caught the criminals red-handed. "As we entered the building, two of the suspects were actually in the process of stuffing so-called bait letters destined for Americans."

Three men were charged with 41 counts of operating a counterfeit check lottery scam. One person, Michael Onesmus, was found guilty and sentenced to three and a half years in prison.

Banks Don't Help

Daniel Fitzgerald*, from Vancouver, British Columbia was another victim of check fraud - and of delayed cheque-clearing by banks.

Like many of us, Fitzgerald posted his resume online. A supposed British investor, James Moon, offered him work.

All Fitzgerald had to do was set up a bank account in Vancouver to pay a client of Moon's, in China - and Moon would send Fitzgerald cheques to cover the amounts.

Fitzgerald received the cheques from Moon, deposited them and waited until his bank told him they were "clear." Then he sent $26,000 to the customer in China. To his horror, Fitzgerald discovered months later that those cheques were in fact fake and that HE was on the hook for the money.

"To be honest with you I was skeptical about the whole thing right up until the bank notified me that the cheque had cleared because I figured it if wasn't a real cheque then there's no way the bank would have cleared it," Fitzgerald said.

When contacting the bank used by Daniel Fitzgerald bank, the Royal Bank, about the lag time banks take to clear cheques.

Jay Stark, the Bank's Vice-President of the fraud department, said that "the customer remains responsible" even if the bank has given the cheque clearance. Stark also said the law allows a bank to come after a customer, up to six years later, for a bad cheque.

Stark promised to take up the issue of cheque clearance with the Canadian Banks Association (CBA) and the Canadian Payment Association (CPA).

However, any improvements to bank cheque-clearing systems will probably come too late for Daniel Fitzgerald who has lost his car, his house and his wife and kids.

"I was absolutely crushed. First of all, I felt stupid because I had been sucked in by these con men. And then I just panicked, I had no idea what I was going to do, the bank told me I was on the hook for this huge amount of money which obviously I couldn't repay. I just didn't know what to do. I felt helpless," Fitzgerald said.

Should banks be allowed to victimize the victims of crimes like these twice by forcing them to pay? They have already lost so much to the con men who's trickery they were fooled by, and then to again be taken advantage of by the banks and being forced to repay them for the losses the bank incurred, is that really fair? Should the banks be allowed to do that? As stated above, they may come after a person months after a cheque cleared there system... But is that the victims fault? Shouldn't that have been something on the banks end to help catch the fraud from the very beginning? shouldn't the bank have caught it much earlier and not allowed it to clear? Mr. Fitzgerld didn't send money to the scam artist until his cheque had cleared at the bank because he was suspicious of it... So the bank essentially helped the con in scamming him by allowing the cheque right? how was he at fault? why is he forced to pay the bank back? and don't the banks have insurance for these sort of things? (I'm sure they have insurance for robberies) or what about when defaulted loans? how do the banks balance there books? I'm pretty sure there's some sort of "bad debt" insurance? right?? so if they're being paid back in that way, and then harassing the already victimized.... How are the crooks and cons now?

THOUGHTS???

*Fictional names, Any resemblance to actual persons is strictly a coincidence

Facebook guru says nothing sinister in service terms

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has told his company's 175 million users that the recent changes his company has made to its terms of use have not been implemented for nefarious purposes.


A contentious clause in the social networking site's recently-amended terms of use has raised the ire of some Facebook users. It reads as follows:

"You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service..."

The new terms of use, which were posted to Facebook on February 4, give the social networking site the right to hang onto information posted by users for as long as the site wants -- and even after that information is removed from a user's profile.

Privacy lawyer Brian Bowman told said that some users may want to consider using Canadian-owned social networking sites that must adhere to stricter privacy laws.

"You're probably going to be afforded much better privacy protection in Canada than you will in other countries, such as the United States," he said.

Zuckerberg, in a post published on The Facebook Blog on Monday, explained why the company made the changes it did.

He said the company changed the language of its terms of use because it better described the way the site works.

"When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created -- one in the person's sent messages box and the other in their friend's inbox," Zuckerberg said on The Facebook Blog.

"Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message. We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear."

"In reality," Zuckerberg continued in his posting, "we wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want. The trust you place in us as a safe place to share information is the most important part of what makes Facebook work."

Zuckerberg said that people want full ownership and control of access to their information, while demanding full access to information that has been passed to them by others, such as email addresses, phone numbers, phone numbers and the like.

"These two positions are at odds with each other," Zuckerman said in his posting. "There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with."

The Facebook founder said his site's users that the contextual issues of privacy and information exchange on the Internet are complex and are constantly "being worked out."

Zuckerman said these issues form "difficult terrain to navigate," but he pledged his company would make efforts to "resolve them very seriously" as they arise in future.

The Real Chris Brown Stands Up

In his first statement since facing assault allegations, the singer's sorry, sad and certainly not venting on Facebook.

Chris Brown didn't update his Facebook status to ominously warn his friends about recently smacked around singer Rihanna. In his first statement on the "super scandal", he denies any of the comments attributed to him on the always accurate internet were his.

"Words cannot begin to express how sorry and saddened I am over what transpired. I am seeking the counseling of my pastor, my mother and other loved ones and I am committed, with God's help, to emerging a better person."

"Much of what has been speculated or reported on blogs and/or reported in the media is wrong. While I would like to be able to talk about this more, until the legal issues are resolved, this is all I can say except that I have not written any messages or made any posts to Facebook, on blogs or any place else. Those posts or writings under my name are frauds."

Media Takeout had posted a screenshot of Christopher Maurice Brown's Facebook with a status line "you'll begin to see her true colors. Believe me." It was then picked up by the New York Post and other suckas (like, um, me) before Chris denied it was his account.

Recent reports have claimed both Chris and Rihanna are in Los Angeles; Rihanna with her longtime assistant Melissa Forde and Chris with his mother Joyce Hawkins. A source tells Radar Online that Chris says he and Rihanna have broken up and he doesn't think she'll press charges.

Ya, good luck with that Chris. Her dad, Ronald Fenty, thinks Rihanna wants to set a good example for women in abusive relationships. "She has support from both sides of the family, and I think she'll come out and represent women and be a heroine," Ronald Fenty told People. "In the end, she'll speak out." That's where I'm hanging my hopes and dreams: that Rihanna's over at Tina Turner's house right now picking up that torch she's been meaning to pass on.

iPhone jailbreaking violates our copyright: Apple

Apple recently told the U.S. Copyright Office that it believes iPhone jailbreaking is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and infringes on its copyright, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The EFF is trying to get the Copyright Office to grant a DMCA exemption on behalf of iPhone owners who have chosen to jailbreak their iPhones, or bypass the restriction Apple places on standard iPhones that only allows the installation of applications from approved sources: the App Store. In its response to the Copyright Office (click here to view the PDF), Apple disagreed that such an exemption was proper because the very act of jailbreaking the iPhone results in copyright infringement.

Current jailbreak techniques now in widespread use utilize unauthorized modifications to the copyrighted bootloader and OS, resulting in the infringement of the copyrights in those programs. For example, the current most popular jailbreaking software for the iPhone, PwnageTool (cited by the EFF in its submission) causes a modified bootloader and OS to be installed in the iPhone, resulting in the infringement of Apple's reproduction and derivative works rights.

The EFF's argument is that jailbreaking your iPhone is protected under fair-use doctrines, and that the Copyright Office should grant an exemption because "the culture of tinkering (or hacking, if you prefer) is an important part of our innovation economy." But Apple's response is that few users of jailbroken iPhones actually jailbroke it themselves; instead, they downloaded software created by other parties to make that happen.

Don't expect Apple to come knocking on your door if you're using a jailbroken iPhone;They used a similar argument in the Psystar case and no one has confiscated my open computer yet. But Apple could be trying to build momentum behind the recognition of jailbreaking that does more harm than good; already this week, iPhone developers have been discussing writing software that only works on jailed iPhones as a way of preventing application bootlegging....Or will that just encourage it?

Thoughts?

Apple gets sued over iPhone screen technology

Two related companies are suing Apple over screen rendering technology used in the iPhone and iPod Touch, according to reports.

Picsel Technologies and Picsel Research, based in Glasgow, Scotland, filed a patent-infringement lawsuit Friday in U.S. District Court in Delaware, Dow Jones reported. The suit alleges that Apple is violating a Picsel technology that accelerates the process of updating a device's display.

According to Macworld, the suit is focused on Picsel technology that people use to zoom and pan documents, sites, and images. Apple's devices wouldn't function as fluidly without the technology, alleges Picsel, which wants compensation for devices already sold.

Picsel's site says its customers include Motorola, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Palm, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, and Sharp. According to Dow Jones, Apple declined to comment.

Family Day costs small businesses

It's Family Day in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta today, which means a day at home for most. But plenty of others can't take the day off and that's hard on small businesses, some critics say.

The three provinces have the day off, while Manitobans are marking Louis Riel Day. Last Monday was Islander Day in Prince Edward Island.

Family Day was first celebrated in Alberta, in 1990. Saskatchewan decided to offer its workers a mid-winter break in 2007, while Ontario's Family Day began in 2008. All three provinces mark the day on the third Monday in February.

In Ontario, those who have the day off include provincial employees, and workers at schools, banks, libraries, liquor and beer stores, as well as those at the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Under the Retail Business Holidays Act, most Ontario retailers cannot be open today, except those designated as tourist attractions, such the Eaton Centre in downtown Toronto.

Federal employees and those in federally regulated sectors will remain in the office. So will most unionized workers, since they already have more than nine paid holidays as part of their contracts.

Holiday costs

While many welcome having a day off in the middle of the long winter, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says the holiday costs small business money - to the tune of $2 billion.

Businesses that close still have to pay their usual costs for a day without any productivity. Those that choose to remain open, such as retailers, restaurants and others in the hospitality industry, are required to pay premium wages.

Judith Andrew, who represents 42,000 members in the Ontario wing of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, says those kinds of extra costs are hard for businesses already struggling to get by during an economic slowdown.

"Whenever government adds more costs and burden on business, they often do that in good times, because they figure: 'Oh, business can take it, they can shoulder it, they can handle it,"' Andrew said.

"And it made for a very nice announcement from the premier, it made him sound generous. But he was being generous with other people's money."

In a survey conducted by the federation, 58 per cent of members said they didn't like having a statutory holiday in February.

Worth the sacrifice

The province says on its website that Ontario's economy is strong enough to accommodate an extra public holiday.

It adds that while there may be some initial impact on productivity, it will likely be made up when employees return to work.

Employees who get time off may work even harder when they are back on the job, because they feel rejuvenated. And, they argue, a mid-winter holiday may spark an increase in industries such as tourism and entertainment/leisure.

Ontario's labour minister said Monday that Family Day is worth the sacrifice.

"We see this as a way to make our province more productive," said Minister Peter Fonseca. "We understand we all work together and we all get a chance to play together, to visit families and loved ones."

For those who do have the day off, it didn't take much for them to get into the spirit of Family Day.

In Ontario, the lineup started early outside the Royal Ontario Museum and other attractions in Toronto. Hundreds of people were lined up around the block before 11 a.m.

"I was trying to find something that wasn't really expensive and kept the kids happy," said one mother who brought her children to Casa Loma, Toronto's own castle.

"I'm really looking forward to Family Day every year," said one woman who is spending the holiday at the Ontario Science Centre. "It's fun for all of us, being off work and spending quality time with the kids."

So, What's closed today?

- banks
- provincial offices
- schools
- liquor and beer stores
- public libraries
- The Toronto Stock Exchange
- most grocery stores
- most daycare centres
- most shopping malls (except those designated as tourist attractions)

What's open?

- federal government offices
- public transit (though on holiday schedules)
- major shopping centres, such as the Rideau Centre and the Eaton Centre

Just how dangerous is online banking?

Sure, the Web makes it really simple to manage your money. But, It also makes your account easier to hack into. Here's a look at the risks and realities -- as well as nine smart tips that can help you protect yourself.

Joe Lopez will never forget the day he checked his Bank of America account online and realized that more than $90,000 had vanished.

Months before, the Miami business owner had stopped making weekly visits to his local branch, opting instead to conduct his financial transactions entirely over the Internet.

"I absolutely thought it was safe," Lopez said. "And it was convenient."

What he didn't realize were the risks. A malicious virus had infected his computer and, in a matter of minutes, captured his user name and password -- allowing a hacker to transfer $90,348 to a rogue overseas account.

Lopez got most of his money back months later, after a U.S. federal investigation and, eventually, a lawsuit. But his experience taught him the hard way, he says, what many experts have concluded: "Online banking is a danger."

Since its debut just a decade ago, online banking has become one of the fastest-growing Internet activities. Roughly 43% of people in the U.S. who use the Internet, or about 63 million Americans, do some banking there, according to a 2006 survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project -- even more than make travel reservations online.

But that growing popularity has also brought increasing anxiety over whether something as private and personal as a bank account can be fully protected in the relatively unregulated and unpoliced world of the Internet.

"It's pretty hard not to do online banking because it is so convenient, and people want convenience," said Atul Prakash, a University of Michigan researcher who conducted a study on the risks of Internet banking. "Nevertheless, there are reasons to worry."

Mia Jozwick, a student at Wagner College in New York City, was duped by a "phishing" e-mail made to look like a message from her bank. Thinking it was an important financial notification, Jozwick responded by firing off her user name and password; she learned it was a scam only after someone emptied her account.

To make matters worse: Thieves were also able to steal her identity, because her password was her Social Security number. It took her a year and help from Identity Theft 911, a service agency, to unravel the mess she found herself in.

How the scams work
Since the birth of electronic commerce, financial institutions have stepped up online security measures to try to make the process less vulnerable to attacks.

Some have spent millions adding more layers of authentication, toughening encryption schemes and going after and shutting down bogus bank sites.

But that hasn't stopped hackers, who continue to look for ways to exploit security gaps.

Among the most popular attacks are phishing schemes that duplicate bank Web sites and ask customers to log on to their accounts. Others send e-mails, purportedly from bank employees, asking for sensitive financial information. Often the two work in tandem, with an e-mail containing a link that directs recipients to a bogus bank site. Both scams are designed to steal user IDs and passwords as a customer types them in, giving a cyber thief access to the person's financial accounts.

Other cyber thieves embed viruses, spyware or "Trojan horses" -- programs that can give thieves unauthorized access to a computer by recording and sending out a user's keystrokes. These programs allow thieves to look over your virtual shoulder as you type in sensitive financial information. Within seconds, your savings and checking accounts, even your investments, could disappear.

How big a problem are we talking about? The numbers are tough to pin down: Experts say there are no reliable studies showing how much money is lost through online banking alone, primarily because banks themselves can't always pinpoint the source of how a crime occurred, whether on the Web or through an ATM.

But various reports offer hints at the magnitude. For instance, about $3.2 billion was lost to phishing attacks in 2007, according to a survey by Gartner, a technology research firm -- with about 3.6 million people losing money to these attacks over 12 months.

"It's a huge business," said Graham Cluley, a senior technology consultant at Sophos, a spam-fighting security firm. "The scammers are literally making millions, and they can be based anywhere in the world."

And the attacks are increasing.

Take the so-called Sinowal Trojan, a virus that injects what seem like legitimate pages on someone's browser, then steals the user's log-in credentials. In probably one of the largest online banking breaches known to date, the virus has compromised 300,000 online bank accounts and about 250,000 credit and debit card accounts over the past three years, according to a study published in October by California's RSA FraudAction Research Lab -- with more than 100,000 online bank accounts hit in the past six months alone.

There are thousands more Trojans out there, many of them specifically targeting online banking customers.

"There is definitely more risk than there was one or two years ago," said Avivah Litan, a Gartner analyst.

She said her clients have told her they've noticed the assaults have doubled in the past six months: "The attacks are so vociferous and manipulative that even the big banks can't stop them."

What are the banks doing?
That's not to say banks are not trying. For a small fee, Bank of America -- the largest online banker in the United States -- recently introduced the SafePass card, a wallet-sized card embedded with a button that, when pressed, sends the customer a six-digit security code via text message. The customer can then enter the code along with his/her user name and password to access an online account. For business accounts or wealthier clients, some banks also offer SecurID, a token-like device that generates a new six-digit code every minute that users need to log in to their accounts.

Bank of America, along with other financial institutions, also has started an alert system advising customers by e-mail or text every time a transaction occurs. "Protecting the safety and security of our customers' information is our top priority," Bank of America spokeswoman Britney Sheehan said.

But not all banks offer the same level of security. "If you are going to do the bulk of your transactions online, you should really shop around to find a bank that has the best security measures," said Anthony Reyes, the CEO of New York's ARC Enterprises, which investigates computer intrusions. "But you have to also make sure you are doing everything right on your side."

Protect yourself
So should you be avoiding online banking altogether? Not so fast: There are risks associated with traditional banking as well.

More than three-quarters of banking fraud stems from offline factors, such as cheque fraud, mail theft or a lost wallet, according to the 2007 Online Banking Security Report, released by Javelin Strategy & Research, a California firm.

"When you're online, even though you have a lot of risks, you're more in control because you can do something about the risk -- you can monitor your accounts, and you can say no to the malicious junk," Javelin President James Van Dyke said. "In the old-fashioned world, such as the paper and mail world, you can't do much to keep prying eyes from looking at those paper cheques and paper statements."

But others point out that online crooks can target thousands, if not millions, of accounts at once, making Web banking the more lucrative target.

"To compromise half a million accounts, you'd have to raid millions of mailboxes -- probably 20 (million) to 30 million in the mail world. But online it could take a matter of seconds," Gartner analyst Litan said. "So in terms of hit rate, online banking is not as safe."

Experts suggest that anyone using online banking should take these steps:

1. When logging on to a bank Web site, a user should look closely at the site's URL to make sure it matches the bank's name. A more secure URL will begin with "https://" and be followed by the bank name. Make sure the bank's padlock is displayed in a corner of the site before you log on.

2. Log on to banks only from a secure computer. Never log on from a public computer in a hotel or cafe, and be careful when logging on to unknown networks with a laptop.

3. If you get a warning e-mail, call your bank -- don't click on any provided links.

4. If your computer is acting strangely -- for instance, reacting slowly or getting pop-ups -- avoid using it for online banking until you can get it checked out.

5. Keep anti-virus and anti-spyware software up to date.

6. Install and maintain a firewall.

7. Never respond to any e-mail that requests personal information.

8. Be leery of fly-by-night, Internet-only banks with high interest rates on savings or chequing accounts. Make sure the bank is FDIC-certified and is insured.

9. And, most importantly, use a different user name and password for each financial account. The password should be complex, with numbers and symbols, and changed regularly.

Still, there are no guarantees.

"It annoys me when people say these consumers are dumb, (that) they fell for it," Litan said. "They are not dumb. These criminals are really good, and you'd have to be a total security geek to stop everything."

One final precaution: Know the rules. Regulations require that banks return money lost to electronic transactions, but the customer has up to 60 days to detect the fraud and two business days to report it. Meanwhile, different banks have their own rules -- look them up before you shift your banking to the Web.

For Lopez, the lesson was painful. As a business owner, he had to sue his bank to try to recover the money; the case settled last year.

Now Lopez is back to old-fashioned banking methods and following up his transactions with phone calls.

"I don't do any online banking anymore. Nothing, zero," he said. "I'm so paranoid."

He also recommends heavy positions in materials stocks, "tied to the strength of emerging markets where infrastructure developments are driving demand for metals and other resources, and rising income levels and meat consumption are pushing up global agricultural prices."

On the negative side, food processors, retailers and other companies that "rely heavily on grain, oil, or other commodities as inputs face increasing costs and thus weaker profits." And rising interest rates are likely to reduce the attractiveness of utility dividends.

Additionally, "financial sector earnings are expected to fall modestly for the first time since 2002," Rubin said. "That compares with expectations just three months ago for a near-double-digit gain for the sector."

RRSP vs. TFSA

A little math gives a definitive answer in the RRSP vs. TFSA debate

A lot of talk and newspaper column inches get spent on the topic of Tax-Free Savings Accounts (TFSA).

In particular, there are lots of musings about whether TFSAs are better than Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) for retirement savings.

Now, as it happens, you needn't rely on musings. It turns out that we can apply les mathématiques to the question, and get a pretty definitive answer. I'll do the math. You just relax, sip your coffee, and prepare yourself to be a good saver.

You'll recall how an RRSP works: Every year, you can contribute the lesser of 18 per cent of your earned income or that year's maximum (currently $20,000 for 2008, and $21,000 for 2009). If you don't maximize your contribution in any one year, the unused portion carries forward and gets added to your maximum for the subsequent year.

When you file your tax return, you get to deduct the amount you contribute to an RRSP from your income, thus saving the marginal taxes you'd have otherwise paid on your contribution amount. You won't pay any tax on the return you earn while your money remains in your RRSP, but when you take money out it will be added to your income in the year of withdrawal. That's a key characteristic: an RRSP gives you a tax deduction for contributions, but you'll pay tax when you take money out later.

A TFSA, on the other hand, allows you to contribute up to $5,000 per year regardless of income, starting in 2009. Any unused contribution amount can be carried forward to future years. You won't pay tax on any return you earn on the money in your TFSA. And although you won't get a tax deduction for the contributions you make, there is no tax payable when you take money out of a TFSA. In that way, it's the opposite of an RRSP. No deduction on the way in, no tax on the way out. It's beautifully simple.

So what's better for retirement savings? The question really boils down to determining when you'd rather avoid taxes - now, or in the future? It's always best to refer to the specifics of your own financial plan (you have one, right?), but most Canadians will spend their working lives in a higher average tax bracket than they'll have in retirement. That makes the structure of an RRSP (and for that matter, a registered pension plan, which works in exactly the same way) the best way for most Canadians to build a retirement nest egg.

Here's a few numbers so you can see what I mean. Let's say you make $45,000 a year. You don't have a pension plan, so if you want to avoid living under a bridge and eating cat food in retirement, you need to save a lot of money. Should you put $5,000 into a TFSA - or more than $7,000 in an RRSP?

That's the question, you see, because that's the apples-to-apples cost comparison between making contributions to either plan. It'll cost you $5,000 of your hard-earned money to put $5,000 into a TFSA. But if you save in an RRSP, the same amount of after-tax dough will buy you a much fatter contribution.

If you make $45,000 a year anywhere in Canada, you're in at least the 29 per cent tax bracket (that's in Nunavut - it's worse in every other province or territory). That means that you can make an RRSP contribution of somewhere between about $7,042 (Nunavut) and $8,112 (Quebec), and the tax savings you'll get will knock your total cost down to $5,000.

Let's assume that you live in Nunavut, since that will give our illustration the least amount of tax savings for the RRSP. Let's also assume that you would buy the same investments in either the TFSA or the RRSP, and that you earn an average return of six per cent (assuming higher returns would increase the relative performance of the RRSP). Finally, let's assume you'll be saving regularly for twenty years. Should your annual savings practice be to put $5,000 in a TFSA, or $7,042 in an RRSP?

Well, if you used the TFSA, those assumptions would mean you'd end up with almost $184,000, tax-free. On the other hand, if you chose the RRSP model, you'd have about $259,000. Yes, you'd still have to pay tax when you pulled money out of the plan. But you'd have more than 41 per cent more capital, and that covers a lot of tax in retirement.

Now, here's the thing about retiring from a job that averaged $45,000 a year: Currently, if you qualified for the maximum benefits, your monthly Canada Pension Plan payment at age 65 would be $908.75, and your monthly Old Age Security cheque would total $516.96. That totals a whopping $17,108.52 per year in government-sponsored pension income.

Do you hear what I'm saying? Most people shouldn't worry about their marginal tax bracket in retirement - they should focus on building the biggest retirement pot possible. A TFSA is perfect for your emergency savings, saving for future expenses, etc. But for people who don't have a registered pension plan, deductible contributions to an RRSP will continue to be the backbone of their retirement savings strategy.